Jump to content

U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court pick Barrett in nearly party-line vote


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Another fantastic achievement by President Trump. This saga illustrates the danger of ego. Had RBG been thinking clearly she could have resigned under Obama's reign and had some progressive judge vote

Appointing a religious zealot to the SC will have consequences for every American, none good.

Posted Images

Thomas: now is time to vote on this case

Barrett:  but I haven't read the brief yet

Thomas: just vote 'no' and shut up

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThailandRyan said:

a Senate majority of 51% is all that's needed.  All republican votes and no democratic votes.  It is what occurs when one side has a majority and all are in agreement on that side.  CAPHICE

 

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now much more likely that the Dems will pack the Court, probably with four more justices.  However, the much-needed reforms of the Court need not stop there.  According to the Exceptions Clause the Congress can make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Court and can regulate it.  So, Congress could pass a law making abortion legal in all 50 states with the explicit proviso that cases brought against this law are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  

 

But my preferred solution goes further.  The Congress can create a new Supreme Appellate Court of the United States and pursuant to the same Exceptions Clause transfer most or all of the current appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by item as exceptions to the new Supreme Appellate Court leaving the Supreme Court with its original jurisdiction over cases between the states and with foreign governments.

The Congress could constitute the SAC with say, twenty-five justices each serving a staggered term of seven years.  Once the filibuster is dispensed with such a law could be passed by simple majorities in both Houses and signed by President Biden.  No amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.  

 

This proposal would address the two major defects in the current Supreme Court: life-time tenure, which is in the Constitution, and judicial review, which is not.  Any other remedy, such as packing, would fail to make the necessary reforms.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Democrat Party started the "judicial wars" 30 years ago by not seating Robert Bork on the Supreme Court...the Republican Party ended them by seating Amy Barrett. The moral: Don't start something you can't finish.

Famous last words...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rabas said:

She now joins the other 8 zealot justices. The court now has 6 catholic judges, a seventh who was raised catholic and became an Episcopalian Christian, and two Jews. All exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion, while guaranteeing your rights to not practice religion, if you so choose.

 

Only one is a member of a cult.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

Separation of Powers when the Senate votes in Judges? What a joke!

SOP refers to Congress and the Presidency...not really the Supreme Court, as its members are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. So the court is really a creature, by necessity, of the other two branches. The justices can also be removed by Congress, so again not completely independent, whereas the justices cannot on their own remove a member of Congress or the president. It's also the only branch of the federal government which doesn't derive its power from the people.

Edited by Pattaya Spotter
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Constitution states the judicial power of the federal government shall be invested in a supreme court, and any inferior courts, that Congress may establish. There is no authority to establish an "appellate Supreme Court," which I presume you to mean a court superior to the Supreme Court. A Constitutional amendment would be required. Increasing or decreasing the number of justices and/or limiting the court's jurisdiction could by done by Congress, however.

 

Article III, Section I states that "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. (U.S. Constitution) 

You misread the Constitution.  The proposed Supreme Appellate Court would be above the various district courts of appeals as just another layer of appeals courts the creation of which is left entirely to the Congress under the Constitution.  The new SAC would not be superior to the current Supreme Court since it would not have jusrisdiction over any cases to which the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction.  It would be superior to the district and appellate courts.  It could equally be called the Superior Appellate Court of the United States to avoid confusion.

 

The key provision is that the Exceptions Clause allows the Congress to strip away appellate jurisdictions that the Supreme Court now holds.  The Exceptions Clause of the US Consitution, Art. III, § 2, Cl 2, provides, “…the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make..."   So, the Congress can itemize the exceptions, i.e. the appellate jurisdictions no longer held by the SC, e.g. Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction over cases involving civil rights, interstate commerce, maritime law, reproductive rights, etc.  

 

The other important point is that Congress can at the same time deprive the Court of the power to overturn any law passed by the democratically-elected Congress, a power that does not exist in the Constitution and which John Marshall created out of whole cloth in 1803.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...