Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

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.

That would be your own highly idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution.  The Congress explicitly has the power to regulate the courts including the Supreme Court.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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.

As I said, my reply was premised on the  proposed Appelate Supreme Court being superior to the Supreme Court. I misunderstood your proposal...if it isn't, then it would be ok.

Edited by Pattaya Spotter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

That would be your own highly idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution.  The Congress explicitly has the power to regulate the courts including the Supreme Court.  

My post was in reference to a members comments re the separation of powers doctrine...not Congress's power to regulate the federal judiciary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

 

What makes you thing these 'judicial wars' (as you put it) are finished? Isn't one of the major 'issues' raised by Trump supporters the possibility of the Democrats stacking the SC?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

I see you have already made the forgone conclusion that she alone will make laws on the books disappear and take away rights and freedoms.  Why do people believe that one person alone can make things happen.  Even with a conservative majority it does not mean that laws and statutes that people believe will be changed will occur.  That in itself is just more scaremongering, and is what the Dems are pushing as an agenda and creating more hatred.  Until the day the arguments come before the High Court we will never know.  Sort of like all those that believed Kavanaugh would vote one way, but then he did not.

 

I don't think anyone believes she could single-handedly be able to change anything major. The issue is more to do with the increased conservative majority in the SC. With a 4-5 roster, there's room for surprises, with 3-6 less so. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Throatwobbler said:

Pretty much what most republicans want. Zero gay rights. No rights for minorities. The women’s place is in the kitchen and she should only speak when spoken too.

 

You mean they agreed to put a woman in the SC only after verifying she's a member of a cult where women are subservient to men?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To interpret the law without fear or favor, and putting ones own personal views aside is how rulings are made.  They are made with judicious review and a complete writ of why and what makes the ruling stand.  Very few of the cases heard by SCOTUS have been set aside by them.  Some have been modified by new legislation which makes a review of a previously heard and ruled on case needing to be revisited and modified. The US Supreme Court has rarely overturned its own precedents, only having done so approximately 236 times during its 231 years of existence.  To undertake a priorly ruled upon case is not done without a total review of the case as it was presented back when it was initially ruled upon, but a complex review of any legislative changes made which would either invalidate or possibly change a portion of that ruling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

 

 

52 to 48 = "nearly" ?  Definitely a Reuters article. 

Yes nearly

 One repub voted with the dems.

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...