Posted on 04/16/2017 2:39:18 PM PDT by T Ruth
Judge Gorsuch ... has recently been confirmed as Justice Gorsuch of the United States Supreme Court. Since then, there have been laments in the pages of [left-wing media] that the Supreme Court is “broken,” ...
[snip]
[W]hat’s needed [to fix the Court] is . . . a recommitment on the part of the nation as a whole to understanding the proper scope of the Court’s authority and its role in our constitutional republic. ... [T]he Court is not the last word on the Constitution and ... to make it so is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law, the principle of the separation of powers, and the Constitution itself.
[snip]
[T]he three branches of the federal government are co-equal and that, therefore, each has the right to interpret the Constitution for itself. Indeed, they are sworn to do so as part of their oaths of office.
We have, regrettably, forgotten this essential truth—a vital expression of the principle of separation of powers—and replaced it with judicial supremacy. This is an alien and anti-constitutional doctrine which illicitly invests the Court with the sole authority to interpret the Constitution and bind the other branches and the sovereign citizenry to its interpretations, irrespective of how vacuous, illogical, and immoral they may be. [snip]
[snip]
The way to fix the Court is to stop treating it as the infallible transmitter of the meaning of the Constitution and its provisions. Part of that means reeducating the nation’s citizens as to how their government ought to function, and part of that means the other two branches—particularly Congress—must reassert themselves as co-equal partners in the job of upholding the Constitution and, thereby, preserving the sovereignty of the people. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Demon has no idea how separation of powers works, or how to overrule SCOTUS. His argument is typically liberal emotionally based.
Autocorrect made an interesting change to Deion’s name.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the government (SCOTUS) to tell the American people what each of the Bill of Rights mean. They intended for the American people to tell the government what they mean. Giving the SCOTUS the authority to interpret them to us was really a stupid, stupid thing for us to do. JMO.
Did you READ this?
He is dead on about what needs to happen and why SCOTUS has exceeded its authority for a very long time.
I agree that the system needs to be fixed, but there is a good reason why our founders put them there for life - and that was to TRY to remove them from trying to position themselves for re-nomination. For example, if your 10 year stint ended under Obama, and you really like being on the court - you might just rule really liberal.
A better idea might be to subject the rulings to Congressional Review. If Congress has a big issue with a ruling, then, perhaps a 60% vote in each house would direct the court to reverse their ruling...and maybe give Congress 2 years in which to overturn.
To use the words of some leftward, whose name I can’t recall; “It’s constitutional,bitches!”
Restrain it, along with the other branches of government.
What should happen is that Congress should use its authority, for example, to withdraw jurisdiction from the Courts on certain subjects.
Also, if the executive, through the Attorneys General, finds that a law is constitutional, it should continue to enforce it, despite any opinion from the courts that the law is unconstitutional.
...Did you READ this?....
Yes. And Congress doesnt have the stones to change law or keep emotionally based ideologues off the Court who ignore the law and Constitution.
Just pass the FDR packing law. Once they reach a certain age the must retire or another Supreme is added to the court. So if there are 2 over 75 and they don’t want to retire then 2 more are added and instead of 9 you have 11.
No not Comgressional review, but all SCOTUS rulings are to be reviewed by a 12 man jury. Funny, that is the law already.
Likewise this college student who thinks he knows better than Justice John Marshall in Marbury v Madison.
He is dead on about what needs to happen and why SCOTUS has exceeded its authority for a very long time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely true. And that’s why President Trump should have completely ignored the courts when they hurled roadblocks in front of his EOs to put a hold on further immigration from countries spawning jihadists.
And you think he doesn't? Sad.
I am impressed with the knowledge and maturity shown by this college student's article.
The way to fix SCOTUS is to pass a constitutional amendment requiring courts to rule based on the original intent o fthe laws. If the casee doesn’t fit the law, then the case must be rejected. That would leave it up to Congress to address the issue.
“We must, in essence, relearn that the Court is not the last word on the Constitution and that to make it so is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law, the principle of the separation of powers, and the Constitution itself.”
Truer words have rarely been spoken in modern times about our Federal Injustice system. Historically, and Logically this is the basic problem with our Constitution system. It simply doesn’t exist anymore...
Nor could any written constitution exist when 1 party gets to dictate exclusively what that Constitution means to everyone else on a case by case basis. Instead we have oligarchy at the discretion of said party, who happen to be unelected, and unaccountable, hand picked Federal Employees in black robes.
Far from the leftist idea of them being some kind of noble class of enlighten supermen, we and now even the left is recognizing them for what they are and have always been. Politicians in black robes who don’t stand for elections but make policy on a case by case basis regardless.
And in this recondition brought upon them only by the prospect of someone with whom they disagree ascending to the court, we find the very idea of an authoritarian court to be counter-constitutional.
But such a idea as a party with dictoral power over our constitution has always defied logic, just as it has defied history.
The Federal Court system is suppose to be but 1 branch of a 3 branch government, their consent to the Constitutionality of any act is required, but is not Authoritatively definitive.
In this crucial respect all the demands by said court upon the other branches and that of our State and local Governments are wholly illegitimate, and should be ignored. Just as an executive act without funding.
This is the function of a 3 branch system of government so that no one branch may act against the people without the consent of the other 2. That they may all enforce the Constitution upon each other, and not simply upon themselves.
I can understand why leftist embrace this authoritarian idea of the court system at least until it turns against them. They have always been shortsighted in their idealistic embrace of powerful leaders solving all their problems with force.
Demon is right in his basic idea, that a system of law cannot function if one and only one party gets to define what the law is on a case by case basis.
Our Founders were wise enough to create a 3 branch system of government with:
1st the legislator being required to pass laws and finance enforcement.
2nd the executive being required to choose to enforce the law.
3rd the Judiciary being willing to find those brought before it by the executive guilty of having broken the law.
In this system of co-equal branches no one branch of government can tell the others what the Constitution is, but they all took exactly the same oath to uphold the constitution if Limited powers with their respective authority.
That means:
1: The legislator should not pass a law or fund any executive or judicial action contrary to the Constitution in its opinion.
2: The executive should not cary out and enforce any legislative act, or judicial order contrary to the Constitution.
3: The Judiciary should not find guilty any man charged by the executive of breaking any law made by the legislator which is contrary to the Constitution.
All of theses Constitution enforcing activities by each branch are within their respective powers and roles under our system. The problem of the last 50 years is the presumption of one branch(the Federal court) to have the exclusive power to command the agreement and behavior of the other 2 branches in defining its version of law and/or policy.
That means there is no constitution but that which the court writes and rewrites on a case by case basis. Thus in practice No rule of law at all.
“The way to fix SCOTUS is to pass a constitutional amendment requiring courts to rule based on the original intent o fthe laws. If the casee doesn’t fit the law, then the case must be rejected. That would leave it up to Congress to address the issue.”
While the basic testate of Common law demands adherence to the written law, as demonstrated by first historic practice and past cases under the same law.
This basic tenet of law means nothing to an unaccountable and unelected bunch of Federal Employees in black robes.
In this respect there is no amendment to the Constitution you can pass that would change this fact, for as long as they reject the co-equal nature of the 3 branches of the Federal Government and 3 levels of American Government while claiming absolute Supremacy over the Constitution. They are Oligarchs, which our leaders have been telling us for 30 years to elect them as to pick ‘better oligarchs’
But there can be no ‘better’ oligarch, Power corrupts all men and the absolute and unaccountable power of the modern Federal injustice system corrupts absolutely.
You have seen this in their behavior, and in their blatant disregard for hundreds of years of settled law and practice to impose brand new restrictions upon our liberty that has never before been heard of or adhered to.
The basic problem is quite simple, the Olgarchs cannot be allowed to make demands of the rest of the Government, only to decide the cases brought before them.
That means no telling states they can’t have their own Constitutions, or enforce their own laws. The 11th Amendment should mean something, yet it is ignored today just as your Proposed amendment is destined to be ignored.
The problem is the executive and legislative branch acting as mere agents of the Federal Court system, while telling we the people they can do nothing. This is patiently not true, and our history is filled with countless examples where the executive and legislator stood up to a lawless Federal judiciary. But almost none in the 20th centery where they have instead claimed powerlessness , as if the only solution was to elect them as to choose ‘better oligarchs’.
Well there are no ‘better oligarchs’ power corrupts all men, and the absolute power bestowed by the other 2 branches upon the Court has corrupted our unelected and unaccountable politicians absolutely.
There is only one long term path to accountability, and that is for the other governments to start acting like Co-equal branches and telling the court to enforce and fund its own edicts.
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.