Let's Work Together to End Judicial Tyranny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
Your legal ignorance is showing. The principle of judicial review comes not from the Constitution, but from the holding in Marbury vs Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). No court or Congress since has tried to overrule that right of the courts to review laws for constitutionality.
Click to expand...
Come now, Richardols. As attorneys you and I both know that judicial review comes from Marbury v. Madison, but we also know the Supreme Court in that case more or less invented its right to judicial review. Brad was asking for a constitutional reference, and there is none.
Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
Come now, Richardols. As attorneys you and I both know that judicial review comes from Marbury v. Madison, but we also know the Supreme Court in that case more or less invented its right to judicial review. Brad was asking for a constitutional reference, and there is none.
Fiat
Click to expand...
Yes, a self-created right to be sure, but one never challenged by court or legislature. And you know as well as I do that this role of the judiciary has been incorporated by almost every newly formed country in modern times as they establish their constitutions. And what would be the alternative? Waiting until the legislatures changed bad laws?

As for no constitutional reference, it isn’t necessary. Courts function on the basis of stare decisis and every decision needn’t be linked to a specific clause of the Constitution.
 
40.png
Richardols:
No. For the record, Justice Kennedy based the juvenile death penalty decision on the U.S. Constitution, not international law. He said that the international consensus against the death penalty for juveniles lent support to the national consensus - our national consensus - that had developed against it.

Kennedy stressed that the decision was based on the SC’s finding that evolving standards of decency in the US now recognizes such executions as cruel and unusual, in violation of the 8th Amendment. Kennedy said, “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”
Click to expand...
40.png
Richardols:
No. For the record, Justice Kennedy based the juvenile death penalty decision on the U.S. Constitution, not international law. He said that the international consensus against the death penalty for juveniles lent support to the national consensus - our national consensus - that had developed against it.

Kennedy stressed that the decision was based on the SC’s finding that evolving standards of decency in the US now recognizes such executions as cruel and unusual, in violation of the 8th Amendment. Kennedy said, “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”
Click to expand...
And yet evolving standards of decency cannot seem to come to the conclusion that killing babies is cruel and unusual, nor exposing young people to heavy pornography does not lead to emotionally stability, nor that homosexual activity is immoral and dangerous. If they were consistent with their “use” of the 8th amendment, I might trust their motives.

By the way, to declare anything unconstitutional, you have to say which part of the consitution that the law violates.

I’m not totally opposed to the results of this case as much as I’m opposed to the excessive analysis of international opinion. And I also wonder if the punishment that Simmons received is proportionate to the cruel and unusual premeditated act of vicious malice that he forced on Mrs Shirley Crook with specific knowledge that he would be protected as a juvenile. Where is the potential victim’s justice here?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Your legal ignorance is showing. The principle of judicial review comes not from the Constitution, but from the holding in Marbury vs Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). No court or Congress since has tried to overrule that right of the courts to review laws for constitutionality.
Click to expand...
I know where the principle of judicial review comes from. I was responding to the request that the constitution show exactly how a court is to perform judicial review. I was pointing out that the constitution does not even have judicial review, let alone judicial law making.
40.png
Richardols:
And what of judicial activism from the right wing? I’ll not see you complaining about that, I’m sure.

%between%
Click to expand...
Doesn’t seem to be a problem. Do you have a current example?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, a self-created right to be sure, but one never challenged by court or legislature. And you know as well as I do that this role of the judiciary has been incorporated by almost every newly formed country in modern times as they establish their constitutions. And what would be the alternative? Waiting until the legislatures changed bad laws?
Click to expand...
Waiting for the legislature is a better alternative than allowing the courts to rule the country at will as an unelected oligarchy. If there were far tighter restrictions on this review process it would be more acceptable.

Just one possibility, I like the idea of allowing a super-majority of voters to override a judicial decision to strike down a law passed by congress and signed by the president.
 
And then whine about it when someone points out the inconsistency.

Just tell Catholics the truth about these people and don’t excuse away the bigotry by enabling them; by rewriting their words so that they sound more reasonable and less offensive. Mohler didn’t say he doesn’t think the Catholic Church is the truth. Those are your words. He said that the Catholic Church is a “false church” teaching a “false gospel.”

Don’t cover for these people. Don’t try and make their bigotry more “palatable” for the rest of us.
 
40.png
Thekla:
And then whine about it when someone points out the inconsistency.

Just tell Catholics the truth about these people and don’t excuse away the bigotry by enabling them; by rewriting their words so that they sound more reasonable and less offensive. Mohler didn’t say he doesn’t think the Catholic Church is the truth. Those are your words. He said that the Catholic Church is a “false church” teaching a “false gospel.”

Don’t cover for these people. Don’t try and make their bigotry more “palatable” for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Babies being killed are offensive to me. Focus on the topic. Focus.
 
40.png
Brad:
Waiting for the legislature is a better alternative than allowing the courts to rule the country at will as an unelected oligarchy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and our country would still be segregated. Conservatives wanted to impeach Earl Warren after Brown v Board of Ed. and were outraged by that decision.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yeah, and our country would still be segregated. Conservatives wanted to impeach Earl Warren after Brown v Board of Ed. and were outraged by that decision.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it the Democratic south in which slavery was legal for so long?
 
40.png
Fiat:
Wasn’t it the Democratic south in which slavery was legal for so long?
Click to expand...
It was the conservative South, with seggies in both parties.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Why do you call them conservatives?
Click to expand...
Those who wanted to free the slaves were liberals, who wanted to extend the rights of free men to the blacks.

Conservatives are those who tend to want to maintain the status quo, and this was true of the slave owners and of Southerners in general at that time.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Those who wanted to free the slaves were liberals, who wanted to extend the rights of free men to the blacks.

Conservatives are those who tend to want to maintain the status quo, and this was true of the slave owners and of Southerners in general at that time.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from?
 
40.png
Brad:
Waiting for the legislature is a better alternative than allowing the courts to rule the country at will as an unelected oligarchy.
Click to expand...
What do you think the role of the judiciary is? Not necessarily a oligarchy, but definitely a check to popular will.

The drafters of the Constitution did not entirely trust popular will. After the Revolution, the country fell prey to mobocracy and legislatures devolved into faction. The Constitution was response to this mobocracy, increasing the power of the executive and the judiciary to moderate and balance the popular will.

The Founders did not draft a Constitution that gives ulimate power to elected bodies. The idea of the legislature voting by super-majority to overturn constitutionally-based judicial decisions is frightening. You should really think about what you are trying to mess with. Changing the structure of our government is dangerous. Its a complex system of checks and balances and disrupting it can have unforeseen consequences. If you want substantive change, seek substantive change. Don’t undermine our entire system of government.

And you might respond that there is no check on the judiciary. I would ask you to pick up a copy of the Constitution. Judges are appointed by the Executive with the advice and consent of the Legislature. The judiciary has no power to raise an army or money and thus depends on the other branches to enforce its decisions - this obviously serves as a moderating check on their decisions.

Again, its very dangerous to alter the structure and process of our govenrment to achieve substantive ends. There are other ways to go about seeking the results we want.
 
As long as you mention their anti-Catholic bigotry, you’ll have no problem from me. But, as I said earlier, I’m ready to call them and their enablers on it every time.
 
Ansel 123

Go back and read the Federalist Papers No. 78 and No 81. These are responses to the Anti-federalists and there concerns about the Power of the Supreme Court. The promises that were made that the States Sovereignty would not be at risk. That the Federal Court would have limited powers and be the “lest powerful branch of government”.
But as soon as the constitution was ratified, the first Supreme Court Justices were all Federalist, and all the promises went out the window. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Martin v Hunter that the state of Virginia gave up its Soverneignty when it ratified the Constitution. It has been all down hill from there.

I agree, we need a system of checks and balances, but I don’t think this is working the way it was intended.
 
midwest mom:
Ansel 123

Go back and read the Federalist Papers No. 78 and No 81. These are responses to the Anti-federalists and there concerns about the Power of the Supreme Court. The promises that were made that the States Sovereignty would not be at risk. That the Federal Court would have limited powers and be the “lest powerful branch of government”.
But as soon as the constitution was ratified, the first Supreme Court Justices were all Federalist, and all the promises went out the window. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Martin v Hunter that the state of Virginia gave up its Soverneignty when it ratified the Constitution. It has been all down hill from there.

I agree, we need a system of checks and balances, but I don’t think this is working the way it was intended.
Click to expand...
I’ve read all these materials in college, in law school, and in pratice.

Your understanding is skewed and tailored not to the historical context (Federalist papers as political writings which are source material, but NOT binding on how we interpret the Constitution) but to your own substantive goals. You are engaging in a dangerous game with untold consequences. And you are seemingly advocating a states’ rights understanding of resolving Constitutional conflict, which was utterly discredited with alot of American blood in the Civil War.

If you want substantive results, seek substantive solutions. The courts have no armies, they can’t raise their own funds, and any case can be overruled by either constitutional amendment or a new statute (depending on what source is at issue). They are appointed by the Executive with the cooperation of the Legislaturs. So how dangerous? It is their job to provide a check on the popular will. I urge you not to disturb this. Our previous experience with mobocracy didn’t turn out very well.
 
Not many of the attorneys I know have alot of time to spend on on-line forums.
I’m sure that I in no way can ever reach your level of understanding and education. I will never be able to comprehend your version of “History as it has happened”. Of course, the winners write the history and those who are most pompous repeat it.

We do reap as we sow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top