SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/05/2012 10:32:42 AM PST by neverdem
Those who oppose judicial supremacy follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln himself.
Newt Gingrich’s statements about the judiciary during the December 15, 2011, GOP debate and on Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation the following weekend ignited a firestorm over his view of American constitutionalism that has been smoldering in the media for several months now. His challenge to judicial supremacy—the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution—has been much condemned, particularly because Gingrich’s argument also criticizes the declaration of judicial supremacy in the Court’s 1958 desegregation decision, Cooper v. Aaron. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress was quick to accuse the former Speaker of siding with the white supremacists of the 1950s when Gingrich first released his position paper on the judiciary in October.
Although the media’s breathless denunciations suggest otherwise, Gingrich is not the first public figure to challenge the Cooper Court’s assertion of its supremacy over constitutional interpretation. Attorney General Edwin Meese did the same in a 1986 lecture at Tulane University. Meese’s address elicited a similarly angry response from the press, especially from columnist Anthony Lewis, who made Cooper the centerpiece of his appraisal of Meese’s speech. As was the case in 1986, the debate over Cooper in the past few months has been confused, epitomized by the New York Times’ recent suggestion that Gingrich’s critique of Cooper has “disturbing racial undertones.” The Times and others misunderstand the history and law of that famous case. Those who argue that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning need not deny the fact that Cooper was rightly decided; they can and do celebrate the courage of that opinion.
Cooper v. Aaron came to the Supreme Court under extraordinary circumstances, the drama of which is matched by...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Three co-equal and also co-dependent branches of government. What a concept. Why didn’t the founders think of it???/sarc
If you are drawing flak, then you must be over the target..... the libs have used the court to progress their adgenda for decades now, and Newt has just kicked the hornets nest.. watch for another media lynching (it has already started, but now it will go into high gear)
Dred Scott was an anti state’s rights decision.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“Three co-equal and also co-dependent branches of government. What a concept. Why didn’t the founders think of it???/sarc”
This is exactly how Newt sees the government as 3 co-equal branches of government. This is why I think Glenn Beck is full of sh!t in regards to Newt. GO NEWT!
Today’s court is mired in the judicial overreach of the past.
Most of today’s Federal government is a Constitutional overreach.
As cases came up in the past, the Court did not rein in Congress and the Executive.
If the current Court were to declare any agency as overstepping the bounds of the Commerce or General Welfare clauses, that would open up the whole can of worms of the vast marjority of government agencies. At this point a correct interpretation of the Constitution would require such radical government downsizing that it would cause a mighty large political shock.
A smart public would continue to mount enormous public pressure on Congress and the President to downsize laws and government so those two branches would fix the problem themselves by shutting down the bureaucracy. This would make it far politically easier for the Court to switch back to basing their verdicts on the Constitution rather than progressivism.
This is not actually true.
Statistical analysis of texts have shown the plural was used more frequently in the early years of this country, but even at the beginning the singular usage was not unknown.
Throughout the 19th century there was a gradual and fairly steady shift from plural to singular usage, with pretty nearly universal singular usage by the end of the century.
The biggest shift in frequency came not after the Civil War, but after the War of 1812.
Another lovely theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts.
They didn't. Congress is supreme under the Constitution whenever it decides to exercise its power, up to and including the removal of members of the other two branches whenever it chooses.
The co-equal delusion has arisen because Congress has almost never exercised its full powers in this regard, with the main exception being the Reconstruction Era, which was arguably a disaster. Nobody seems interested in reviving the full powers of Congress, as it would require the Congress to assume responsibility for controversial policies rather than passing it off the the president and the courts.
But that doesn't change the plain meaning of the Constitution.
The issue was not that the Cooper decision should not have been enforced and enforceable, but the broader-than-needed and broader-than-mandated powers the court claimed for itself in justifying the enforcement of Cooper.
Newt (and others) was/were right, and the media (and progressive academics) were wrong - as usual.
Yes, Yes, Beck went off his rocker. GO NEWT! If a law is passed by the House, Senate and President it is law. If a challenge is made the SC can debate and determine if this law violates the Constitution or the Powers given to the House, Senate, and the President. If so then it goes back to the Administrative and Legislative for correction. The SC cannot pass laws but can place a "hold" on the law until resolved. I may be wrong and would gladly stand corrected.
Technically correct but inaccurate in fact.
The courts write law all the time by their creative interpretation of existing laws and the federal and state constitutions. Up to and including requiring states to institute new taxes and direct how those taxes will be spent.
The biggest difference is that an unpopular law passed by Congress can, in theory anyway, be repealed after an election changes the composition of Congress. An unpopular decision by the Supremes cannot be changed except by gradual change in the Court over decades. Or if Congress were to grow a pair and impeach judges who violate their oaths by writing law.
A very important piece. Thanks for sharing it with us.
If I had to list three things that more than anything else are destroying our free republic, the judicial supremacist lie is among them.
If self-government does not work here (It isn't) it will not work anywhere.
Now you went and riled all the Lawyers up! Megan Kelly will have a conniption.
Congress has been more than willing to progress their agenda while letting the Court take the blame. Few here accept that but it is very true. Look how Jeb Bush hid behind an old, family court judge to let him kill Terry.
Yep. Every officer of government in Florida, and in the United States, abrogated their constitutional duties and handed their power over to that tinpot little tyrant in a black robe.
That’s right.
It’s nonsensical blame shifting. Unfortunately we let them do it.
When it’s declared unconstitutional, the courts are done with the exception of judging anyone violating the law as free to go.
If Congress wants to pass another bill and the President wants to sign it into law, so be it.
Our problem today isn’t the court negating law without agreement from the other branches. Our problem is the court extending law without the consent of other branches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.