[Political Junkie Too]

I think that there are still options to be explored short of a Constitutional amendment.

For instance, Congress already has the power under Article III Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

In order to get rid of "activist judges," Congress can eliminate all the current judges seated on current circuit courts, Congress can then realign all the circuit courts (hello 9th Circuit), and then the President can renominate judges to the new circuit courts. Any judge with a history of activism can either not be renominated, or not be confirmed by the Judiciary Committee.

Also, can't Congress pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? Can't Congress say that questions of marriage and the definition of marriage are out of jurisdiction to the courts?

The problem with an amendment to the Constitution is that the Constitution is supposed to be a limiting powers document of the Federal Government, not of the people. All the wording is about saying what the Federal Government is and what it can and can not do. Everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and the people. We already tried amending the Constitution to limit the rights of the people -- see the 19th amendment and how well that worked out. The only language limiting the rights of people are in their roles as Constitutional officers, so even that is about limiting the Government.

I would love to see a debate in Congress on realigning the Federal Courts and getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.

-PJ

[tpaine]

I would love to see a debate in Congress on realigning the Federal Courts and getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.
-PJ
11


_______________________________________


Me too.. But it's best we don't hold our breath while waiting for hell to freeze.

[tahiti]

"I think that there are still options to be explored short of a Constitutional amendment."

You make some excellent constitutional points in your analysis. Thank you.

[Jim Noble]

Also, can't Congress pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? Can't Congress say that questions of marriage and the definition of marriage are out of jurisdiction to the courts?

They certainly can.

In fact, they have a Constitutional duty to "regulate and make exceptions to" the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

However, to do so involves the possibility that the permanent incumbency they have designed for themselves might come to an end.

This, they will never do.

[Mo1]

In order to get rid of "activist judges," Congress can eliminate all the current judges seated on current circuit courts, Congress can then realign all the circuit courts (hello 9th Circuit), and then the President can renominate judges to the new circuit courts. Any judge with a history of activism can either not be renominated, or not be confirmed by the Judiciary Committee

Can Congress do that? ..

Also .. aren't many of these activist Judges on the State level and wouldn't that be stepping on States right?

[Kryptonite]

I would love to see a debate in Congress on ... getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.

Naw. The people are already shocked, courtesy of the Mass. Supreme Court, the San Francisco Mayor, and the concomitant anarchy. The debate in Congress is going to focus on traditional v. gay marriage, and those politicians who vote the gay marriage side will be punished, by the people.