While on the flip side, the liberal minority (especially Sotomayor) are pretty much abandoning the pretense that their dissents are based somehow on the rule of law. The arguments are becoming more and more about how they personally feel about the cases, and are offering less and less legal justification for their position.
The recent Ohio voter purge ruling was a great example.
The majority stated that the Ohio voter purge policy is legal because it specifically follows federal legal guidelines to the letter. The ruling clearly points out the required pieces of the federal guidelines, and shows how the Ohio policy follows them in every way.
The minority stated that the Ohio voter purge policy is illegal because they don't like it. They offered everything from their own opinions as to the "motivation" for passing the law, to offering misleading and meaningless statistics to justify their own personal opinions as to why the law is too evil to let stand. What they failed to include, was a legitimate legal argument that the law is unconstitutional.
Moreover, this sort or reflects a larger growing division as to the role of the judiciary in our system. Most all conservatives (and a clear majority of Americans) believe that the Judicial branch should be interpreting the law, using the constitution, and factoring in legal precedent to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Meanwhile there is a loud and rabid minority who see the courts as the place where they can reign in the policies and laws of their political opponents, because they don't have the political control to do so through policy. This minority wants the referees to be another "player" in the whole legislative game. Players they hope to be on their side, of course.
Nearly all of these cases seem to be from the same side. Liberals suing conservative bakers to control their behavior, liberals suing conservative politicians to prevent them from implementing policies, and liberals suing conservative states to overturn laws. Liberals have no policy control, so they resort to the courts. Thankfully the constitutional majority in the USSC are standing their ground. I hate to tell them this, but liberals "may" need to win some elections to garner their policy initiatives.
71 comments:
attempt to suggest that the 7-2 ruling in favor of the Colorado Baker was a limited victory for religious liberty.
Yeo.....a non decision on the merits of whether a baker can discriminate or not at best!!!!....the rest of your screed is nothing but extreme extremist bias....IOW"S extreme bullshit!!!! Get back after the next decision is rendered.....
Hi oPie. Nice to see ya. Hope all is well.
Hope all is well.
Whatever you disingenuous pile of dog shit.....find a job and do us all a favor and go away....
You want to reverse a Supreme Court decision from 1803, is that correct Scott?
The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, the authority to declare laws made by Congress or states unconstitutional. This power is not stated directly in the Constitution. The right of judicial review was first established in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case Marbury versus Madison.
It was a 7-2 decision. You're going apoplectic over a decision you agreed with. I read the decision. I would have voted with the majority even though that man is a piece of shit.
You believe that the states could once again write voting rights restrictions upon race religion or race despite the Constitution has specific rules outlawing abortion slavery and the list goes both ways.
You have lost it.
You're partisanship has replaced your analytical skills. Proof?
While on the flip side, the liberal minority (especially Sotomayor) are pretty much abandoning the pretense that their dissents are based somehow on the rule of law. The arguments are becoming more and more about how they personally feel about the cases, and are offering less and less legal justification for their position.
Let's ban chinks from voting in Minnesota.
Pass the law and nothing could prevent it from happening.
I hate to tell them this, but liberals need to win some elections to prevent such laws in Republican states from returning to the pre-civil rights era.
DNC hires Hollywood for message.
"I think of Blow up the White House" "Fuck Trump" "she's a Cunt"
You're cowardly ignorance on the North Koreans gulags that the President found them reasonable because Kim Jong Un was just 26 and the use of murder and torture were justifiable.
Duckandchicken.com should be the title.
Off the pro slavery topic.
As attorneys for Michael Cohen rush to meet Judge Kimba Wood’s Friday deadline to complete a privilege review of over 3.7 million documents seized in the April 9 raids of Cohen’s New York properties and law office, a source representing this matter has disclosed to ABC News that the law firm handling the case for Cohen is not expected to represent him going forward.
To date, Cohen has been represented by Stephen Ryan and Todd Harrison of the Washington and New York firm, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP.
No replacement counsel has been identified as of this time.
Cohen, now with no legal representation, is likely to cooperate with federal prosecutors in New York, sources said. This development, which is believed to be imminent, will likely hit the White House, family members, staffers and counsels hard.
Back to Impeach Trump.
The 7-2 ruling in favor of the Colorado Baker was a limited victory for anti gay rights advocates.
A more blatant attack upon gay marriage and other prejudicial measures may not be a slam dunk victory for bigotry even in a conservative Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is not a hard core believer of original Intent like Scalia was.
The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, the authority to declare laws made by Congress or states unconstitutional.
Of course. But they still need to show that the law actually runs counter to the "constitution" to rule that law unconstitutional.
That ruling does not simply provide Justices with the ability to rule something unconstitutional because they don't agree with it.
As stated by Alito - It's not the place of the courts to second guess Congress on matters of political policy.
Roger's ignorance is staggering sometimes.
Unless there is a clear blue wave to completely reversal in Congress there will not be any serious attempt to form a #impeachtrump movement.
KD said...
Back to Impeach Trump.
The idiot of the west speaks for himself......no one is running or saying that yet
You're avoiding one thing. Original intent is a political decision based upon political opinion. I've read extensively in the past.
As the human beings have made discoveries that were not known to the authors of the Constitution they wrote in ignorance both scientific and human behavior.
The court should consider whether or not that their decisions should be restricted by the knowledge unknown in the late 18th century or upon modern information.
I can see it from both sides. But I believe that original intent is too restrictive. It can open a "can of worms". Original intent has led to a judicial policy upon political beliefs. IMNSHO.
Democrats are going to Hollywood for their message. And Hollywood is all about the vulgar hatred snd impeachment.
Not to mention lib mega donor tom steyer
Maxine still talking impeachment. She hates trump.
Al Green still pushing for impeachment
You're avoiding one thing. Original intent is a political decision based upon political opinion. I've read extensively in the past.
No Roger...
Original intent is just that. What is the original intent of the constitution, the bill of rights, etc...
Regardless of how you want to argue it... there is no legal precedent for Justices to overturn actions or laws... just because the Judges have a political difference with the law or legislation. They have always been required to show a legal justification (how it is at odds with the constitution) to declare a law unconstitutional.
The separation of powers as laid out in the constitution provides the Executive branch the ability to use executive actions, and the legislative branch the ability to create legislation (or laws).
The courts were granted no such ability to create either an executive action or a law. They are only supposed to settle disputes about the constitutionality (legality) of a law... based on the legal arguments.
They are not elected officials, Roger. They are not allowed to simply use their own political opinions to make (or change) law.
Scott answer this question. Do you want to reverse Marbury versus Madison?
"I've read extensively in the past."
Chilling, if true.
Try your nonsense on Jonathan Turley's site.
Since there is no legal precedent for Justices to overturn actions or laws...Marbury versus Madison has been granted to the Supreme Court with its own opinion of Marbury versus Madison.
You're walking around the question.
Your ignorance would fill a dozen BlueRay DVDS
Your side lost the Civil War.
Roger -
You simply don't understand Marbury vs Madison. There is no reason to overturn it... because we do not want Congress passing laws that are fundamentally unconstitutional.
But Marbury vs Madison does not (as you seem to believe) allow Justices to overturn Congressional laws because they don't like them.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Again, Roger... Marbury v. Madison is legitimately a ruling that reinforces the concept that the constitution must be the arbitrator of whether a Judge can overturn a congressional law. Short of it being "inconsistent" with the constitution, a Judge must let it stand (regardless of their personal opinion).
CommonsenseJune 13, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Roger's ignorance is staggering sometimes."
Like him saying Pres. Lincoln lost the Civil War.
US House of Representative Democrats.
58 voted to Impeach Trump.
Question is, why has SueAlky and his "butt bottom" Denise running from it ?
MEANWHILE
Cohen’s Lawyers Quit, Suggesting He’s About to Flip
June 13
“As attorneys for Michael Cohen rush to meet Judge Kimba Wood’s Friday deadline to complete a privilege review of over 3.7 million documents seized in the April 9 raids of Cohen’s New York properties and law office, a source representing this matter has disclosed to ABC News that the law firm handling the case for Cohen is not expected to represent him going forward.
“Cohen, now with no legal representation, is likely to cooperate with federal prosecutors in New York, sources said. This development, which is believed to be imminent, will likely hit the White House, family members, staffers and counsels hard.”
Meanwhile, Cohen is telling friends that he expects to be arrested soon, CNBC reports.
_______________
Nothing to worry about, Ch.
It's all just a witch hunt with no legal substance.
SueAlky, flies his idiot white flag again.
"U.S. Rep. Pramilla Jayapal voted for a measure Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump. "
Muller refusing to release information to the Defends of his Russia Probe. He criminally charged Concord Managemdnt.
"Discovery" is a foundation of our Judicial System. The judge is about to toss the cases and find Muller in contempt of court.
As usual, the pedophile is too stupid to debate CH so he spams.
Nothing new.
The People that Voted Trump created the environment so that peace and denuclearzation with North Korea is even a possibility.
Sorry James -
Cohen's issue have nothing to do with Russia, and according to the people who referred the case over to New York, nothing to do with Trump.
But hey, what is this now?
The 14,765th or the 14,766th time that the shoe was just about to drop on Trump?
SueAlky ?
Your state is set to split into 3 pieces, the issue is on the Nov Ballot.
"Your state is set to split into 3 pieces, the issue is on the Nov Ballot."
Sell it to Spain. Build a big, beautiful wall.
Hollywood Messaging for the 2018 Democrats.
Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So, please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy," Maher said on the Friday broadcast of his HBO show Real Time."
Yep.
13/2018
Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent
Two Norwegian lawmakers representing the populist party in the country’s legislature have nominated President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The lawmakers told their local media that Trump has “taken a huge and important step in the direction of the disarmament, peace and reconciliation between North and South Korea.”
In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Has always been open to interpretation because the rulings were inconsistent with the Constitution as the person sees it.
The decisions are by no means infallible.
The decisions are by no means infallible." *none dumber.
Kput'z shut up and quit embarrassing yourself.
Marbury v. Madison didn't give the Supreme Court license to decide a case however the hell they wanted.
And the court's authority only exist as long as it is respected by the other two branches of government. The have no independent authority to enforce their rulings.
Jackson's famous quote is as pertinent today as it was in the 1830's.
The bottom line is the court can't overreach it's limited duty to interpret the law according to the constitution.
They cannot make up policy on their own. Scalia was quite prescient when he said I wish I had a stamp that said "Stupid but Constitutional".
Has always been open to interpretation because the rulings were inconsistent with the Constitution as the person sees it.
Okay... but the Judge still has to make an actual plausible and logical argument as to why it is inconsistent with the constitution. Right?
They cannot just make an argument as to whether they inherently like or dislike an action or a law... and pretend it's the same thing as arguing something is "unconstitutional".
In other words, Roger...
You cannot pretend the portion of Marbury v. Madison that refers to a law having to be inconsistent with the constitution in order for the court to overturn it... doesn't exist. It's as much of Marbury v Madison as anything else.
Roger has perfected raising the white flag
Roger is the one embarrassing himself.
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.
Has always been open to interpretation because the rulings were inconsistent with the Constitution as the person sees it.
every fucking time we discuss a USSC ruling that the left doesn't agree with you start squawking 'marbury vs. madison' without having the first fucking clue as to what that ruling means.
it's pretty cut and dried. is it constitutional or not?and the "interpretation" if you want to call it that is always ORIGINAL INTENT.
as scalia had repeatedly stated - "the constitution is not a living document; it's a dead document."
so any law that is reviewed by the USSC is not "open to interpretation." the standard is "is it constitutional? yes or no?"
that's it.
your problem is that you wish for the ability to interpret a law not by a dead document, but by a whim or malleable interpretation. this most recent runling revealed sotomayor to be the intellectual lightweight and special interest group appointee i knew she was from day one.
this was one of those rulings that was so fucking obvious, a layperson with only a casual passing interest in the law had to wonder where the fuck she came up with her dissent. it was THAT BAD.
Sotomayor's dissent literally (as Alito suggested) had nothing to do with the case that the Justices were asked to resolved.
It was basically her providing America with her own negative opinion of the law itself, sans any legal argument what-so-ever. As if she has some sort of power as a USSC Justice to simply decide what should and shouldn't be law based on her individual political views.
Those types of people should not be provided the power to use the bench to write law.
A crash course in Marbury v. Madison — One of the most helpful sections in these speeches is Scalia’s explanation of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that gave us judicial review:
The only reason federal courts sit in judgment of the constitutionality of federal legislation is not because they are explicitly authorized to do so in the Constitution. Some modern constitutions give the constitutional court explicit authority to review German legislation or French legislation for its constitutionality, our Constitution doesn’t say anything like that. But John Marshall says in Marbury v. Madison: Look, this is lawyers’ work. What you have here is an apparent conflict between the Constitution and the statute. And, all the time, lawyers and judges have to reconcile these conflicts — they try to read the two to comport with each other. If they can’t, it’s judges’ work to decide which ones prevail. When there are two statutes, the more recent one prevails. It implicitly repeals the older one. But when the Constitution is at issue, the Constitution prevails because it is a “superstatute.” I mean, that’s what Marshall says: It’s judges’ work. (W)
Problems arise, however, when we don’t treat the Constitution as a text with a fixed meaning:
If you believe, however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail; if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year; if you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say,
particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society — if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask.
If that is what you think the Constitution is, then Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn’t be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English — whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don’t. So in principle, it’s incompatible with the legal regime that America has established. (W)
The Living Constitution replaces our representative democracy with an out-of-touch oligarchy — Why should nine justices determine how society is “evolving”? After all, notes Scalia, he himself was out of touch with the American people:
I'm not very good at determinating what the aspirations of the American people are. I am out of touch with the American people. I don't even try to be in touch. People mention movie stars and I don't know who they're talking about, and I get a blank look on my face. If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the Congress to make the relevant decisions.
And of course that's the way it's done in the United Kingdom. The Parliament says what the English Constitution consists of.
So, if you really believe in the evolving theory, and you're right about this, then we made a mistake in Marbury v. Madison, and the Supreme Court shouldn't stick its nose into this stuff at all. It should be up to the Congress to determine where we evolve. What makes you think a committee of nine lawyers ought to tell where we're evolving to? I'm a philosophy minor, but I didn't train as a philosopher. I'm just a lawyer, just between you and me. That's what I'm really good at. (C)
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches
Originalism confines judges, and limits them to the meaning of the text. But under the theory of the Living Constitution, judges are given the power to govern the American people:
What is the criterion that governs the Living Constitutional judge? What can you possibly use, besides original meaning? Think about that. Natural law? We all agree on that, don’t we? The philosophy of John Rawls? That’s easy. There really is nothing else. You either tell your judges, “Look, this is a law, like all laws, give it the meaning it had when it was adopted.” Or, you tell your judges, “Govern us. You tell us whether people under 18, who committed their crimes when they were under 18, should be executed. You tell us whether there ought to be an unlimited right to abortion or a partial right to abortion. You make these decisions for us.” I have put this question — you know I speak at law schools with some frequency just to make trouble — and I put this question to the faculty all the time, or incite the students to ask their Living Constitutional professors: “Okay professor, you are not an originalist, what is your criterion?” There is none other. (W)
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches
so there you have it folks.
you can either go with scalia's interpretation of marbury vs. madison or you can go the alky's.
sotomayor helped yale law check off a diversity quota box. it took a complete fucking clod like 0linsky to be so stupid as to put her on the USSC.
Those types of people should not be provided the power to use the bench to write law.
What is clear here that the extremist on the right have learned to C+P biased views and complain about the bench writing laws when they do not agree with them while embracing them when it is to their liking.....most amusing especially with our new law expert rat hole leading the charge!!!!
As if she has some sort of power as a USSC Justice to simply decide what should and shouldn't be law based on her individual political views.
which is (ironically) exactly what roger is advocating.
liberals are fucked up. they would truly prefer to be ruled by the whim of 9 justices vs. the will of the people via the legislative branch.
give us ONE example of the right legislating from the bench, d0pie.
just one.
take your time.
liberals are fucked up. they would truly prefer to be ruled by the whim of 9 justices vs. the will of the people via the legislative branch.
Actually no... they would prefer to be ruled by the whims of the 9th circuit court rather than the USSC. The USSC is too conservative for them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
No judge wrote that Dennis, neither did CHT. It was James Madison.
Now show where James Madison wrote that two gay men had a right to marry.
Or where they had the right to compel free men to work for them.
You're not being honest Scott.
Roe V Wade said that women had the right to control their own bodies. It's not specifically in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that the decision was invalid.
You lost the Civil War. We are a democratic republic. But the independent states cannot pass laws that don't conform to the Constitution as determined by the courts, one of the three divisions of our government.
In your view that the independent States can pass laws as they desire and are not required to confirm to the Constitution.
Here you go asswipe......
http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/roberts-and-alito-legislating-from-the-bench/
Thanx for playing
In your view that the independent States can pass laws as they desire and are not required to confirm to the Constitution.
Nope.
My view is that laws that are consistent with the Constitution can be passed and put in place by either the states or the federal government.
The Courts can (from Marbury v. Madison) make a ruling that a law is unconstitutional if it is "inconsistent" with the constitution.
Since... you know... that is what the ruling actually states.
My view is that there is no such ruling, precedent, or inkling of legal reasoning for the idea that Judges can overrule either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch as a matter of a policy dispute. A judge cannot overrule an EA or Law simply because they don't like it.
A judge needs to find that an executive action or a law has a logical and fairly obvious conflict with the Constitution to rule that the law is invalid.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that our duly elected President, Senate and Congress need not exist, other than to pick and choose the issues that we should bring before the courts, so that the masters of the Universe wearing their black robes can unilaterally make the decisions for everyone, based on their own personal beliefs.
Seriously Roger... why elect any executors or legislators if you are simply going to allow the Judiciary branch to make up laws based on the individual feelings of the judges ruling the case? Especially since you have several hundred federal Judges (who apparently you believe all have the authority to tell the executive and legislative branches that they made the wrong decision - even if that decision is consistent with the constitution and other laws).
Why not follow the constitution, where it states that the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch make executive policy and implements the legislation passed by congress... and that the judiciary branch settles any disputes regarding the interpretation of these actions and laws?
Roe V Wade said that women had the right to control their own bodies.
and forty five years later... people are still fighting the ruling, legislators are still pushing the limits, and the judicial branch is still playing around with the specifics.
Unlike or Civil Rights act that was actually a legislated action that fundamentally changed our country. Nobody is legitimately still arguing that we should make laws that segregate or make black people sit on the back of the bus.
Had we come together as a country, passed an amendment or other federal law regarding abortion, we would likely have much less messing around with it. You live by the courts, then you die by the courts. Just ask women in Texas, where there only like four abortion clinics left. None of that happens, if we had our elected leaders legislate a solution.
You know what the irony is in the term “Pro-Choice”?
When the mother chooses to kill her unborned baby, she denys her a whole life-time of choices.
Scott you created a picture of what you think that I think. It's not true.
Some basic principles that comply with the Constitution are brought before the court. Interracial marriage came to the Supreme Court because some states had banned interracial marriage since the end of the Civil war. It was not being fixed in the individual states Scott.
Sometimes we have to rely upon the courts if individual states or the federal courts to address basic human rights.
Most of time the legislatures and the Congress have addressed the problems. But when the case goes to the court that is a fundamental right do you think that courts should not address it?
Abortion is controversial at many levels. I almost always side with the woman's side.
You lost the Civil War. " SueAlky.
The blog Miss.
Denise, your link goes to a ALT -Left blog, was that the correct link?
"MENU
HomeAbout UsSpokespeopleMichael Keegan
Image for Michael Keegan
Michael Keegan
President and CEO
Michael Keegan has extensive experience as a business executive, philanthropist and longtime board member of both
Progressive groups speak out, stand up against violence in Charlottesville
The Wisconsin Gazette
Here are the groups that oppose Steve Bannon in the White House
CNN
Jeff Sessions Said ‘Secularists’ Are Unfit for Government
The Daily Beast
All Posts
BLOG POST | JUNE 5, 2018
The GOP’s Neo-Nazi Problem
BLOG POST | APRIL 17, 2018
PFAW’s Right Wing Watch and the Mike Pompeo Confirmation Fight
BLOG POST | JANUARY 4, 2018
Happy New Year! Trump’s Voter Suppression Commission DISBANDED
BLOG POST | NOVEMBER 8, 2017
Landslide! The Blue Wave You Built
BLOG"
I wrote that myself.
Mueller thinks he is above the US Constitution as he refuses to release his information to those he has charged.
"
In the seminal 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution requires prosecutors to disclose information to criminal defendants that could be helpful to them in their defense. "
Some basic principles that comply with the Constitution are brought before the court. Interracial marriage came to the Supreme Court because some states had banned interracial marriage since the end of the Civil war. It was not being fixed in the individual states.
Interracial marriage was constitutional until the passage of the 14th amendment. An amendment that was debated and passed by 2/3 of each house in Congress and 3/4 of the various states.
Still the most abused clause by activist judges is the14th’s vague equal protection clause. Strictly constructed it only guarantees equality between race, religion, and/or ethnic origin. (Not sex, and certainly not sexual orientation).
Scott you created a picture of what you think that I think. It's not true.
Well Roger...
My stance is exactly the same as Marbury v Madison. The Courts can consider challenges to laws, and overturn them if they are inconsistent with the constitution.
Obviously there are laws that are inconsistent with the constitution. Laws that are obviously in violation of the first amendment, or the fourteenth amendment, or whatever.
but you obviously disagree with my stance, and continue to argue that Marbury v Madison is wrong.
That disagreement comes directly from the fact that I criticized Sotomayor for not following the guidelines of Marbury v Madison (which require that a Judge or Justice show a direct inconsistency with the Constitution or existing law).
She simply disagreed with the actions of the state of Ohio, and contended that the law was bad, questioned the motives of the legislators, and provided faulty statistics to bolster her feelings. But the actions of the State of Ohio are directly in line with the federal laws that guide purging voter rolls, and are not in any direct conflict with the constitution.
You continue to argue out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believe in Marbury v Madison, then you would expect a judge to show inconsistencies with the constitution if they want to shoot down a law.
But instead, you argue that Judges have the right to use their own political beliefs to guide their legal decisions... which has absolutely nothing to do (and flies in the face ) of Marbury v Madison.
Of course, if I am getting this wrong, and you do believe in Marbury V Madison... then why is it that you defend Justices who are willing to overturn laws that are not "inconsistent with the Constitution"?
It's as if you would "like" Marbury v Madison to be something different than it actually is.
Post a Comment