Posted on 03/05/2015 11:20:38 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
That must be some HOT video the left has on CJ Roberts...
“President Cruz’s first act should be to revoke ALL of 0bama’s Executive Orders.”
Only Democrats seem to have the balls to clean house and bash the previous administration when they get in power.
Well, actually the Rule of Law ended with Wickard v. Filburn. National Associaion of Manufacturer's v. Sebelius was it's post-mortem, and King v. Burwell is the headstone.
“A “the law is whatever the President wants to enforce”
That’s not how a country is run. That’s how a concentration camp is run.
Marbury v. Madison was an adroit high-wire political act that assumed the power of judicial review, but pulled a surprise switch at the end of the opinion in favor of the prevailing political party to preserve the power the Court had just appropriated to itself.
Dred Scott v. Sanford was an abomination of legal reasoning, but was intended to achieve the political goal of deciding the slavery issue once and for all. Ironically, it did more to foment the Civil War it was intended to prevent.
The Slaughterhouse Cases and Lochner v. New York were judicial codification of prevailing government/private industry economic policies not really rooted in Constitutional doctrine, and while the Slaughterhouse Cases have been eroded by the expansion of the Due Process Clauses, it completely gutted a clause of the Constitution that was intended to have legal effect, but now has none.
Lochner was abandoned as politically inexpedient when Justice Roberts completely changed years of personal judicial philosophy to side with FDR's "New Deal" in West Coast Hotel. He was clearly responding to the political pressure of FDR's "court packing scheme," not merely a matter of "judicial evolution."
United States v. Nixon was the last time the Court spoke as a Court, a unanimous 8-0 opinion, on a matter of Executive Authority. It was a case that needed a unanimous opinion, and we got one. Since then, the appointment process has become a political battleground, mostly driven by the Court's own decision in Roe v. Wade, another abomination of judicial reasoning and Constitutional interpretation. Because of that, what were once deferential appointments have become the bitter bone of contention between left and right in the U.S. Senate.
The result has become a highly polarized and politicized Court. The greatest example of this was Bush v. Gore,. This may have been the most important case the Court has decided in the past 50 years, for the reason that in effect, the Supreme Court of the United States selected the President. It was a case that begged for a unanimous decision, and in order to heal political divisiveness the country needed a unanimous decision. Instead, it was a very predictable 5-4 vote. Because it was a narrow vote on partisan lines, the left will always claim it was political. It was the right decision, but it's value was lost because it was also a political one.
The Court continues to be a political battleground today. Both political parties are hovering like vultures over the not-yet carcass of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wondering whether she will be replaced by Eric Holder, or whether a Republican might instead appoint a real jurist.
I see no end in sight, and the political analysis has done much to damage the Court's credibility as a neutral and objective arbiter of the law.
A FReeper yesterday described the SCOTUS as only 5 Justices (four of nine are so dependably liberal such that everybody can forecast their vote on every case, AKA deadheads), with the 1 dissenter of the remaining 5 deciding the outcome of any case which is burdened with the mere whiff of politics.
If Roberts had done his job in the first place this discussion would not have been necessary.
The Justices were talking about the Chevron case, a Supreme Court decision from 1984. Chevron says that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts must enforce it as written, but if the statute is ambiguous, the courts must defer to administrative regulations construing the statute, so long as the regulation is "reasonable," even if the court thinks the administrative interpretation is not the most reasonable one, and even if the administrative agency changes its interpretation from a prior interpretation. (I'm not a big fan of the Chevron rule, but it's been repeatedly reaffirmed by SCOTUS over the past 20 years.)
“In other words, the future of ObamaCare should be up to the voters, not the justices.”
Read the history of Ted Cruz.
Of course it would be worth it but we have precious little courage in “leadership” today.
Agreed.
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.