Still think the Religious Reich and their puppets in Congress aren't trying to take over?

[docwebster]

A rather frightening little bill, HR 3799, seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and basically say that there're certain things that it can't touch.

Go read this article, folks. It's getting scary out.

Me for President in 2008!

Comments

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

Pfeh. The bill's a red herring. Any alteration to the powers of the Supreme Court would require a Constitutional Amendment. It would be kind of amusing, though, to watch them pass the bill only to watch the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Not true. Congress has the right to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The relevant portion of Article III, Section 2 is quite explicit about that:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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.

This may be the easiest way to prevent the Supremes from declaring DOMA unconstitutional, and thus enable individual states to have gay marriage, but let other states not recognize it, without an amendment.

[popefelix.livejournal.com]

What about Marbury v. Madison (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm)?

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

It was a significant power grab by John Marshall, but it didn't invalidate Article III, Section 2. There is a possibility that the Supremes could issue a ruling that flies directly in the face of that passage (there are certainly precedents for that!). However, it's worth remembering that Supreme Court justices can be impeached, too, and quite a few should have been (particularly those who've twisted the interstate commerce clause beyond recognition). :-)

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected.

One wonders what the Founding Fathers were thinking, though. I suppose it's one of the checks and balances to prevent the Supreme Court from becoming too powerful, but it strikes me as rather self-defeating. Congress could potentially pass a law totally castrating the powers of the Supreme Court to declare the constitutionality of law. That's giving the legislature an inordinate amount of power, IMHO.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

As opposed to the inordinate amount of power the Supremes have now, able effectively to invalidate nearly any act of the executive or legislative branches by declaring them unconstitutional, however dubious the grounds? I like the idea of checks and balances very much; the Supremes are supreme only over other courts - not the other branches.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Just as a wild-ass thought ............ you don't suppose they're TRYING to provoke a Second American Revolution, do you?

(FWIW, according to Robert A. heinlein, it's not due for another 71 years.)

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Heinlein used as base for his timeline Harrimans private funded moontrip, in 1987...

Guess he was off a few years.

If the RRR [Right-wing Religious Riche] thought that provoking a second revolution, would get them their theocracy then they'd do it.