Is it Time for the US Congress to Impose Checks and Balances on the SCOTUS?

[forn]

And the one way they can be held to account - impeachment - is virtually impossible to do in light of the two main parties antipathy towards each other.

Well, it's a good thing they've done nothing to deserve impeachment then.

 

[Rich2018]

Well, it's a good thing they've done nothing to deserve impeachment then.

Overturning Wade Vs Roe would be one.

 

[forn]

Overturning Wade Vs Roe would be one.

Hardly. The original decision was quite a stretch, more activism than legal interpretation. We've had a liberal Supreme Court for so long, people are just salty when it goes the other way.

 

[Jason Warfield]

The USSC is fine the way it is. Every time the liberals don't get their way, it's time to change the court.

The members of the USSC were accused of being being political activists with Roe v. Wade in the1970's. The members of the USSC are being told again that they are political activists by saying that it's not a Constitutional matter. They will be the punching bag for the liberals who are too lazy to go after the real culprits............................ legislative representatives.

I'm pro choice up to 16 weeks and for medical reasons afterwards and that's plenty of time for the mother to make a decision.

The unborn can feel pain after 20 weeks.

I love it how you make it seem like only liberals do it and totally ignore that each and every time a president of either party has the opportunity to place a judge on the SC, it is because either their party "doesn't get their way" or they are trying to keep on "getting their way".

Who are you trying to kid?

I mean, Trump put justices on the SC because the GOP wasn't getting its way.

 

[Rich2018]

Hardly. The original decision was quite a stretch, more activism than legal interpretation. We've had a liberal Supreme Court for so long, people are just salty when it goes the other way.

The Supreme Court should be liberal* - banning abortion is something only backward countries like Catholic Ireland do - and even they repealed that part of their constitution that prohibited abortion.

*In the truest sense of the word.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I love it how you make it seem like only liberals do it and totally ignore that each and every time a president of either party has the opportunity to place a judge on the SC, it is because either their party "doesn't get their way" or they are trying to keep on "getting their way".

Who are you trying to kid?

I mean, Trump put justices on the SC because the GOP wasn't getting its way.

Trump put justices on the court because the vacancies opened while he was president and he had the ability to get them confirmed

 

[Rich2018]

Trump put justices on the court because the vacancies opened while he was president and he had the ability to get them confirmed

Err yes.

When has that not been the case ?

 

[SMTA]

Err yes.

When has that not been the case ?

You’re wrong as usual

 

[Rich2018]

You’re wrong as usual

...except you're not able to demonstrate why - as usual.

 

[vegas giants]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

The devil is in the details

 

[Rich2018]

The devil is in the details

Something that the US Constitution is generally lacking in.

 

[SMTA]

Something that the US Constitution is generally lacking in.

No it’s not

 

[Rich2018]

No it’s not

You're saying that the US Constitution is a highly detailed document, completely lacking in ambiguity ?

 

[SMTA]

You're saying that the US Constitution is a highly detailed document, completely lacking in ambiguity ?

maybe, maybe not

 

[Rich2018]

maybe, maybe not

It's not. It's completely lacking in detail.

 

[Fledermaus]

It's not. It's completely lacking in detail.

It has plenty of detail.

 

[Jredbaron96]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

The federal judiciary is in need of restructuring, preferably with the addition of more federal districts, term limits for SCOTUS justice, and a more stringent code of conduct for them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Captain Adverse:

The SCOTUS's ability to conduct judicial review is no where explicitly granted and described in the US constitution (a marvellous irony in the face of the Roe vs. Wade SCOTUS decision and the unenumerated privacy rights which the justices cited as grounds for undoing the 49-year old SCOTUS decision). Judicial review was established by the Marbury vs. Madison case that was fought out between 1801-1803. So just like Roe vs Wade, which was based on a SCOTUS decision claiming an absence of a constitutional or statutory foundation for privacy rights, so is the role of judicial review by the SCOTUS likewise foundationless and based solely on a SCOTUS decision in 1803. So if stare decisis applies to uphold judicial review by the SCOTUS, then why does it not apply in privacy-right-based Roe vs. Wade and other related cases?

It seems Congress should put the SCOTUS on hold until they can explain that glaring contradiction.

Judicial review was the inevitable result of the federal judiciary being tasked with taking cases under the Constituion then mandating that federal laws coincide with the Constitution, then writing the rest of it as a series of vague promises of rights to the people.

 

[Captain Adverse]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Judicial review was established in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). That is the Foundation. Study the case history. Then the reaction of Congress at the time. Had the Founding members and subsequent Congresses wanted to oppose this, they've had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. They did not back then because they recognized a need for interpretation of legal principles and the establishment of legal precedents.

IMO this is still an important tenet to protect against Congressional and Presidential over-reach. Remember, if Congress does not like the interpretation of the law, they have the power to create, amend, or otherwise change the law. Meanwhile despite what some people want the Courts don't make law, they can only interpret it.

 

[jonny5]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

We already have checks and balances. SCOTUS has no enforcement or lawmaking power. So, no.

 

[Rich2018]

The federal judiciary is in need of restructuring, preferably with the addition of more federal districts, term limits for SCOTUS justice, and a more stringent code of conduct for them.

Agreed. The right will currently turn a blind eye to Supreme Court justices' corruption, so long as they're "Republican" justices.

 

[Safiel]

It's not. It's completely lacking in detail.

There is something to be said for brevity.

While there are some points that could have been ironed out better in the text of the Constitution.

Alabama Legislature

Web site created using create-react-app

alison.legislature.state.al.us

Unfortunately, numerous State Constitutions, particularly Alabama, show the evil of detailing everything in the Constitution.

Less remains more, when writing Constitutions.

Of course, that means the courts will fill in the details, sometimes in a less than desired manner.

 

[Rich2018]

There is something to be said for brevity.

While there are some points that could have been ironed out better in the text of the Constitution.

Alabama Legislature

Web site created using create-react-app

alison.legislature.state.al.us

Unfortunately, numerous State Constitutions, particularly Alabama, show the evil of detailing everything in the Constitution.

Less remains more, when writing Constitutions.

Of course, that means the courts will fill in the details, sometimes in a less than desired manner.

There may be, but a constitution is not such a case.

When writing a constitution, you shouldn't just details the basics Leave the details to the imagination of subsequent generations.