Posted on 06/13/2008 4:26:54 PM PDT by Josh Painter
In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here... all those years... studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”
It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for "President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases.
People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.
I also find it just a tad ironic that in a case involving habeas corpus, which literally means that one must produce a body (or person) before a court to explain the basis on which that person is being detained, the decision of this court may mean more fallen bodies in the defense of a Constitution some of these justices ignored.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
At the time Fred Thompson dropped out, it looked to me as though:
If anything, I consider Mr. Thompson's willingness to drop out for the sake of his country a sign of good character.
Isn't Bork anti-gun?
Yes he is. The Dems did us a favor with him.
Unfortunately, from the moment President Thomas Jefferson caved in to the first power-grab by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that established the principle of "judicial review," the nation has been on a slippery slope to the horrific decision this week. Like the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, the judicial has been steadily increasing its power and reach ever since Marbury.
Until, and unless, congress and the executive tell the court to stick it where the sun don't shine in cases where the court tries to tell the other two branches what to do, nothing can be done by anyone. Oh, and by the way, state courts have followed the SCUS lead in expanding their hubris to the point where they tell their state legislatures and executives what to do.
Yes he is. The Dems did us a favor with him.
What I'd like to see, though I know it will never happen, would be for a judge to openly acknowledge that while it is reasonable to adhere to precedent in cases which are truly ambiguous, any decision which is not consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws thereunder is illegitimate, and no level of precedent can change that.
BTW, I'd also like to see an acknowledgment that if an omniscient jury would acquit someone, the person should justly be acquitted. While it is routine nowadays for the state to withhold information because it knows that such information would lead a jury toward acquittal, I would regard such actions as illegitimate. To be sure, if a defendant opens up such lines of inquiry the state should have the authority to open up lines of cross-inquiry which would otherwise be forbidden, but denying juries the information necessary to make a proper decision undermines the jury system.
“But it would be nice if he would just go away.”
Oh wouldn’t it! I keep dreaming that McCain could be dumped at the convention and Fred Thompson/Mitt Romney be drafted. Have heard Romney on two different radio shows this week were he said he is against closing GITMO and the court decision, against Cap&Trade, and FOR drilling here and now in America. That is why McCAin will not pick Romney for his VP. Romney is just too conservative for McCAin! Makes me ill to have to vote for McCAin so I do hope he only serves a short time or that we have a chance to elect a conservative in four years!
Wish we could hear from any Freepers or FR readers who are delegates for McCain. Wonder if they have “second thoughts” and would consider NOT voting for McCAin at convention. Would love to see my dream come true: Thompson/Romney! Someone here on FR mentioned that Ron Paul is working for an upset at the convention but don’t know if there is anything to it. My choice now is McCain and I just don’t like that choice!
What exactly could he have done? Essentially, what happened was that the Court took a case which circumstances had already rendered moot before it was heard. Nobody could argue that the decision was unfair for the winner, because he "won"; nobody could argue that the decision was unfair for the "loser" because he didn't really lose anything. Since nobody could really dispute the outcome, nobody could really protest that the court had no legitimate authority to make the decision in the first place.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the judiciary the power to review laws passed by congress and declare them unconstitutional. Marshall was motivated by politics. He was a Federalist while Jefferson and Madison were "Democratic-Republicans." Marbury, like Marshall, was a Federalist.
Marshall wanted to embarrass and rebuke Jefferson and Madison, so he created out of whole cloth the notion of "judicial review," grabbing for the court the power to rule acts of congress unconstitutional. That was the first violation of the separation of powers in our history.
Jefferson (and congress, for that matter; it was filled with Jeffersonians at the time) should have been true to the founding constitutional principles and told the court it had no standing to even rule on the Marbury matter. Jefferson should have made the case publically for rejecting "judicial review" of acts of congress, because such review is not in the constitutional powers granted the court. We have had an increasingly runaway judiciary ever since.
I think that Bush should just ignore this decision as the SCOTUS clearly doesn’t have jurisdiction over this.
Yes, but my point is that (my recollection is a little fuzzy) the rule that the Court struck down had already been rendered meaningless. If the Court's ruling had forbidden the enforcement of a law that actually meant something, Jefferson could have simply ignored the ruling and enforced the law anyway. As it was, though, since the Court wasn't really demanding or forbidding any action by Jefferson, there was no way to demonstrate acceptance or refusal.
BTW, one thing I wish the Court would do more often would be to reject a case without prejudice if a particular side fails to present its best argument, and ask that the case be re-presented using the proper argument. From what I know of the facts of the case, the proper outcome in Lawrence v. Texas would have been a remand to trial court with instructions that the jury should acquit if it makes certain factual findings. The Supreme Court could not legitimately made such a ruling without the proper arguments having been presented, but finding against the defendant would have been politically tenuous. Having the Court suggest an argument to an appellant/appellee might not seem proper, but establishing precedent based on faulty argument is even worse.
If Bork is anti-2nd Amendment, then that would weigh heavily against him. I don’t know. I know what I read of him back when he was nominated and since was highly favorable. But I don’t recall his specific thoughts on that subject.
Bingo, the real problem here is that they ignored the jurisdictional limitation Congress put on the legislation it passed. By enforcing the decision, the President is complicit.
Someone mentioned Marbury vs. Madison. Marbury is irrelevant. It doesn’t address express limitations on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court placed by Congress. The former justice Roberts even acknowledged this when he tried to get an amendment passed removing this power from Congress and it failed.
How do you know he dropped out for the sake of the Country? He’s never made that statement, AFAIK.
At the time Fred dropped out it looked to me like he needed to retrench and get serious. His message was catching and just starting to take hold.
I never saw, and still don’t see, any valid reason for him to have dropped out. That he did it the way he did, felt like a slap in the face to some of us who held him in such high regard.
I’ll always respect the man’s politics, but his people skills suck.
He lost the South Carolina primary, which was right in his own back yard. He figured if he couldn’t win there, he couldn’t win the nomination. He was right.
As far as sending out letters, his mother had been taken ill with pneumonia and hospitalized. He was a little preoccupied at the moment. Family comes first.
Great piece and so....Fred.
~snip~
In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”
~snip~
I like the sound of that. Do we know if FDT would consider that position?
It's okay, honey ... now roll over and go back to sleep.
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.