Mark R. Levin, a New York constitutional lawyer, in his new book “Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America” commends two solutions to the problem he poses. First, to prescribe term limts, instead of life terms, for federal judges, especialy the supremes. Second, he advocates an amendment to the constitution that would permit Congress to overturn a court decision by a super-majority - just as they can overturn a presidential veto. He also predicts that if the Democrats continue to obstruct confirmation of Bush’s judicial appointments, the Republicans will change the rules of the senate to permit a simple majority (as was the case until 1949).
He makes a good case that the courts have usurped the powers of the legislative branch, and I heartily agree, though I believe that appointing judges that base their decisions on the constitution, rather than foreign law, their own agenda or beliefs, etc. would cure that problem.
[QUOTE=Charleylake]Mark R. Levin, a New York constitutional lawyer, in his new book “Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America” commends two solutions to the problem he poses. First, to prescribe term limts, instead of life terms, for federal judges, especialy the supremes. Second, he advocates an amendment to the constitution that would permit Congress to overturn a court decision by a super-majority - just as they can overturn a presidential veto. He also predicts that if the Democrats continue to obstruct confirmation of Bush’s judicial appointments, the Republicans will change the rules of the senate to permit a simple majority (as was the case until 1949).
He makes a good case that the courts have usurped the powers of the legislative branch, and I heartily agree, though I believe that appointing judges that base their decisions on the constitution, rather than foreign law, their own agenda or beliefs, etc. would cure that problem.
You know, the founding fathers did a good job of separation/limitation of powers of the executive/legislative branch. They missed the boat on the judicial. Especially with the lifetime appointments - I think 10-15 years would be plenty. Which even liberals can support, since they know that a Republican President’s appointees can only be there so long.
DEFINITELY agree with the idea of judicial fiat being subject to legislative correction. Think of all the busing that could have been avoided.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]You know, the founding fathers did a good job of separation/limitation of powers of the executive/legislative branch. They missed the boat on the judicial. Especially with the lifetime appointments - I think 10-15 years would be plenty. Which even liberals can support, since they know that a Republican President’s appointees can only be there so long.
DEFINITELY agree with the idea of judicial fiat being subject to legislative correction. Think of all the busing that could have been avoided.
I concur here, and I also think that an obvious senate minority should have no say in whether or not a judge can be voted on.
Charley:
Please share with me some Supreme Court decisions that you find are problematic and in your view represent judges swaying from the Constitution and the laws of the land and instead invoking their own opinions/beliefs and usurping the Congress power. I may agree with you on some.
I strongly disagree with you and Mr. Levin’s theory that somehow our High Court is “destroying” this nation. So does that mean poverty,drugs, crime, violence, hate, racism and bigotry aren’t the real things that are destroying this country?
Let me be honest, I have a feeling that if the Supreme Court had 9 Justice Scalia’s on it (Ewww I cringe at that thought), you and Mr. Levin would think the Supreme Court was the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps the Supremes at times are destroying YOUR version of what American should be. And given the fact that you are likely the most socially conservative person on this planet, YOUR version of what American should be is 1000% different than mine in many areas. Now don’t think I agree with the Supremes on every issue, I don’t. But I think the current court has a good balance of conservatives (Scalia, Renquist, Thomas), Liberals (Ginsburg, Stephens, Breyer) and moderates (Kennedy, O’Conner, Souter).
I strongly oppose any mechanism that would allow Congress to overide a SC decision. And I’d feel that way even if Congress were majority democrat. Would you? Congress is not always right and the position favored by the majority of Americans isn’t always right. I assure you the majority of Americans didn’t think women should have been allowed to vote, or that interracial marriage should have been allowed, or that “seperate but equal” should have been abolished in schools, public facilities, etc… Congress isn’t always right and I’d put alot more faith in 9 of the most brilliant legal minds in the country ahead of a congress full of elected public servants who worry first about getting reelected and second about doing whats right. And don’t forget, for a case to even be considered by the Supremes, it must go through at least two other courts and be accepted by the Supremes. Hardly a one judge show.
I do think the federal “judges for life” thing could be changed. Some type of term or reappointment would be good. Keep some federal judges form getting too big for their britches.
Look forward to further discussing this!
[QUOTE=Charleylake]Mark R. Levin, a New York constitutional lawyer, in his new book “Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America” commends two solutions to the problem he poses. First, to prescribe term limts, instead of life terms, for federal judges, especialy the supremes. Second, he advocates an amendment to the constitution that would permit Congress to overturn a court decision by a super-majority - just as they can overturn a presidential veto. He also predicts that if the Democrats continue to obstruct confirmation of Bush’s judicial appointments, the Republicans will change the rules of the senate to permit a simple majority (as was the case until 1949).
He makes a good case that the courts have usurped the powers of the legislative branch, and I heartily agree, though I believe that appointing judges that base their decisions on the constitution, rather than foreign law, their own agenda or beliefs, etc. would cure that problem.
So you think the party in the majority in the Senate should have absolute power to shove any judicial nominee down everyone’s throat and anyone who disagrees, including the minority party, should just shut up about it? No matter how extreme that nominee may be? You ever stop to think that the filibuster was put in place to protect the rights of the minority party?
I suppose you are one of those people who think that Bush having over 200 of his nominees voted on and confirmed and only around 10 not voted on was just a blasphemy, but it was ok to stall Clinton nominees, including a very well respected baton rouge attorney/LSU professor who never got a vote in the GOP senate.
Do you honestly think the minority party, at any point in history, should just roll over and accept any judicial nominee, no matter how offensive to the ideals of their constituents? You can’t be serious.
[QUOTE=BoogDoc7]I concur here, and I also think that an obvious senate minority should have no say in whether or not a judge can be voted on.
Props on your comment about the Warren Court decisons on criminal procedure, stops, seizures, and all that stuff. As an attorney and part time prosecutor, I am sometimes amazed by the patchwork of legal protections the defendants have that orginated from the Warren court. I am not saying some of those decisions back then weren’t good ones, but I am always amazed at how the Court came up with some of those things like having to Mirandize an arrestee and the “terry” search and pat down. But like you said, a super-majority of congress can overturn alot of things. But I happen to think that if you can’t get a super-majority to agree, chances are the Supreme Court decision may have been right.
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]I?m ok with ending lifetime tenure, having seen up-close the arrogance that comes with such power, but I doubt it will ever pass.
I oppose the proposal about overturning court decisions by congressional?supermajorities,? but think it?s superfluous anyway: a supreme court decision interpreting a statute can be overturned by a simple legislative majority amending the law. A supreme court decision interpreting the constitution currently can?t be?overturned” by Congress alone, but a congressional supermajority can propose a constitutional amendment which can overturn the decision, then send it to the states for ratification. There have been many amendments proposed to overturn supreme court decisions in the last 50 years, but the problem is not getting the states to ratify them, it?s getting the congressional supermajority in the first place. Just think of the Warren Court decisions on criminal procedure- a lot of STATES would have loved to overturn them. They never got the chance because the requisite congressional supermajority never materialized.
I do think that the Senate should change its rules to prevent filibustering judicial nominations. I thought it was wrong when they sat on Clinton?s appointments and I think it?s wrong when they sit on Bush?s. I don?t buy the excuses both parties put forward that they were blocking?radicals? of various stripes either- if they were so?radical? why did you need to filibuster, why not just let them go to a vote? (Answer: they weren?t?radical?, just unpalatable to Jacobins of both parties, and they had the votes to make it on a majority up-or-down vote, but the extreme wings of both parties could cobble enough votes for filibustering, or place a?hold? on the nominee).
I agree, the courts have too much power. Take a normal man, make him a judge, and suddenly he becomes an arrogant, self-centered, know it all a*hole. Judges have forgotten that its their job to administer the law, not become the law.
[QUOTE=NOLA democrat]Charley:
Please share with me some Supreme Court decisions that you find are problematic and in your view represent judges swaying from the Constitution and the laws of the land and instead invoking their own opinions/beliefs and usurping the Congress power. I may agree with you on some.
Five of the current supremes are on record as opining that they would consider “foreign sources or precedents” in forming their opinions. Not the constitution - foreign sources or precedents.
The Dred Scott decision imposed slavery on the Free Territories.
Plessy v. Ferguson imposed racial segregation on a private railway.
The Korematsu decision imposed internment of US citizens based upon their Japanese ancestry.
Roe v Wade “found” a right of privacy in the US constitution. I can’t find it, can you?
The current federal courts have personally managed some local school systems for decades, ordered local and state governments to raise taxes to fund activites, struck down state laws that require residency requrements for government benefits, etc.
If I fervently desire what I consider an essential or beneficial social, political, etc. goals in our society, then I should offer myself as a candidate for Congress and seek to have those goals implemented. But if I am appointed a federal judge, I should leave those fervent desires at home and look to what the U. S. CONSTITUTION SAYS! If it ain’t there, it ain’t there, and no wonderfully beneficent intentions justify imposing my beliefs on the nation. If the results are worthy enough, the constitution can be amended by the people themselves or through their states. But not by fiat of 5 black robed supremes.
1. Is it not prudent for judges and justices to consider many sources in their quest for justice and authoring sound judicial opinions? I think it is. Now you indicated that 5 of the Justices would “consider” foreign sources or precedents, so what! Just because something is considered, doesn’t mean it is used primarily to form and make a decision. Heck, I have considered cases from other appelate circuits and states in writing legal briefs and memos, doesn’t mean they were my primary source but I may have considered them.
2. You state “Not the constitution” - how do you know this? How do you know that the Constitution and the laws of the US are not the PRIMARY source that the Justices use, while “considering” or reviewing other legal sources? You don’t. I think you are seriously drawing inferences here based more on your perception of the Court than on fact.
3. I was really looking for you to give me opinions from THIS court that have shaped your opinion in thinking the Court is destroying this country as you stated earlier. PLEASE enlighten me as to what this current court has done to make you so pessimistic.
You mentioned Roe v. Wade, wasn’t the “definition of and beginning of life” the primary issue there, according to Justice Blackmon, not privacy? You also mentioned federal court actions, like running school districts - you are wrong in saying that federal courts “run” school districts. They may monitor them in accordance with deseg lawsuits (like in St. John parish, EBR parish, Evangeline parish for examples) but the local school boards still run those school systems, you are off base with that Charley.
4. So do you feel that the Constitution, written in the 1700’s, is not a living breathing document that can be interpreted in different ways by different people? There are many issues like Equal Protection, Full faith & credit, and rights enumerated from the Constitution that can and are interpreted in different ways and just because it may not be interpreted EXACLTY as you want it to be, doesn’t make it an invalid interpetation. The framers did a good job with the constitution, but there were a plethora of issues they never dreamed of that have constitutional ramifications, like it or not!
[QUOTE=Charleylake]Five of the current supremes are on record as opining that they would consider “foreign sources or precedents” in forming their opinions. Not the constitution - foreign sources or precedents.
The Dred Scott decision imposed slavery on the Free Territories.
Plessy v. Ferguson imposed racial segregation on a private railway.
The Korematsu decision imposed internment of US citizens based upon their Japanese ancestry.
Roe v Wade “found” a right of privacy in the US constitution. I can’t find it, can you?
The current federal courts have personally managed some local school systems for decades, ordered local and state governments to raise taxes to fund activites, struck down state laws that require residency requrements for government benefits, etc.
If I fervently desire what I consider an essential or beneficial social, political, etc. goals in our society, then I should offer myself as a candidate for Congress and seek to have those goals implemented. But if I am appointed a federal judge, I should leave those fervent desires at home and look to what the U. S. CONSTITUTION SAYS! If it ain’t there, it ain’t there, and no wonderfully beneficent intentions justify imposing my beliefs on the nation. If the results are worthy enough, the constitution can be amended by the people themselves or through their states. But not by fiat of 5 black robed supremes.
Hey buddy, why don’t back the hell off and learn how to read and maybe you’d see that I wasn’t even replying to your little post in the first place. I didn’t even read your post.
I was replying to someone else, if you weren’t so concerned with being defensive and trying to prove a point, maybe you’d have seen that before making a fool of yourself, with your “all caps for my benefit”
gees what a jerk.
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]NolaDemo: After reading this shrill diatribe, including the asinine?I suppose you are one of those people who think that Bush having over 200 of his nominees voted on and confirmed and only around 10 not voted on was just a blasphemy, but it was ok to stall Clinton nominees?, it?s evident you didn?t read what I wrote. I will reprint the relevant portion for YOUR BENEFIT in all-caps so YOU WON?T MISS IT THIS TIME:
?I do think that the Senate should change its rules to prevent filibustering judicial nominations. I THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG WHEN THEY SAT ON CLINTON?S APPOINTMENTS AND I THINK IT?S WRONG WHEN THEY SIT ON BUSH?S.?
I don?t know how to make that any plainer for you. If you read that and think that I believed it was ok to stall Clinton?s nominees but not Bush?s, there is not much more to say to you.
For anyone else reading this: most of the rest of NolaDemo?s post was a mis-statement of what I think. I believe that legislative bodies, like the Senate, should be run for the most part by MAJORITY vote. I think that the senate itself is antidemocratic enough. I believe that if a judge is approved by the judiciary committee, he should get an up-or-down vote by the full senate. I believe that truly?extreme? nominees will be rejected, as some have, and others have withdrawn when it became obvious they would not be confirmed.
If you think that would mean the end of the world, well, boo hoo hoo for you, thank god such evil has not yet come to pass. Take comfort in the filibuster, a vital tool to protect America from the majority vote of its elected representatives, most famously used to prevent?radical? legislation such as voting rights for black people.
[QUOTE=NOLA democrat]So you think the party in the majority in the Senate should have absolute power to shove any judicial nominee down everyone’s throat and anyone who disagrees, including the minority party, should just shut up about it? No matter how extreme that nominee may be? You ever stop to think that the filibuster was put in place to protect the rights of the minority party?
I suppose you are one of those people who think that Bush having over 200 of his nominees voted on and confirmed and only around 10 not voted on was just a blasphemy, but it was ok to stall Clinton nominees, including a very well respected baton rouge attorney/LSU professor who never got a vote in the GOP senate.
Do you honestly think the minority party, at any point in history, should just roll over and accept any judicial nominee, no matter how offensive to the ideals of their constituents? You can’t be serious.
Read my post again. I said “VOTED ON.” NOT approve or accept. VOTED ON. The debate IS needed, but it is wrong there for a clear minority to oppose the will of the majority in this matter. We ask for an up-or-down vote.
And I don’t support filibustering judges under any administration. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And there is actually cery little “extreme” about the judges, other than they might uphold a pro-life position, something that is actually quite popular in these here United States.
I think that the supermajority idea has benefit because I suspect that certain decisions would not have been overturned had such a scenario rose. I suspect that both houses (especially the senate) would rarely go so far as to oppose the Supreme Court.
I also don’t think that ANY foreign law should be allowed for consideration in American court. It sets poor precedent for anything like that to be allowed. We have enough trouble with our own laws and legal system, thank you very much, without having to add something else to it.
I see you have read my posts.
Well, what you see as not being “extreme” in nominees may be viewed differenly by others, and upholding a pro-life stance may be popular with some, but its quite unpopular with just as many. You use the term “we” , are you expressing what you think all republicans want?
I don’t have a problem filibustering what I see as “extreme, ultra right wing religious” nominees. Once again I know that is subjective but its the way i see it. If the democratic senators didn’t filibuster a few of those, they’d be virtually giving up and allowing a vote which would certainly go along party lines. So yes, on those extreme nominees, they should filibuster, its the only way to stop those nominees that are too far right (or left) for the courts. And like I stated earlier, 10 or so out of over 200 nominees confirmed hardly seems like something to make a fuss over, unless the fuss is politically motivated.
[QUOTE=BoogDoc7]Read my post again. I said “VOTED ON.” NOT approve or accept. VOTED ON. The debate IS needed, but it is wrong there for a clear minority to oppose the will of the majority in this matter. We ask for an up-or-down vote.
And I don’t support filibustering judges under any administration. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And there is actually cery little “extreme” about the judges, other than they might uphold a pro-life position, something that is actually quite popular in these here United States.
I think that the supermajority idea has benefit because I suspect that certain decisions would not have been overturned had such a scenario rose. I suspect that both houses (especially the senate) would rarely go so far as to oppose the Supreme Court.
I also don’t think that ANY foreign law should be allowed for consideration in American court. It sets poor precedent for anything like that to be allowed. We have enough trouble with our own laws and legal system, thank you very much, without having to add something else to it.
[QUOTE=BoogDoc7]Read my post again. I said “VOTED ON.” NOT approve or accept. VOTED ON. The debate IS needed, but it is wrong there for a clear minority to oppose the will of the majority in this matter. We ask for an up-or-down vote.
And I don’t support filibustering judges under any administration. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And there is actually cery little “extreme” about the judges, other than they might uphold a pro-life position, something that is actually quite popular in these here United States.
I think that the supermajority idea has benefit because I suspect that certain decisions would not have been overturned had such a scenario rose. I suspect that both houses (especially the senate) would rarely go so far as to oppose the Supreme Court.
I also don’t think that ANY foreign law should be allowed for consideration in American court. It sets poor precedent for anything like that to be allowed. We have enough trouble with our own laws and legal system, thank you very much, without having to add something else to it.
BOOB
You state “And there is actually cery little “extreme” about the judges, other than they might uphold a pro-life position, something that is actually quite popular in these here United States.”
Maybe in RUSTON but do you really BELEIVE that “pro life” is such a big issue in the REAL world???
You state “And there is actually cery little “extreme” about the judges, other than they might uphold a pro-life position, something that is actually quite popular in these here United States.”
Maybe in RUSTON but do you really BELEIVE that “pro life” is such a big issue in the REAL world???
Makes you wonder. What is the usual criterion that leftists usually determine what to do with a nominee? Abortion…
Maybe you should reference what Kerry was talking about in one of the debates.
Also, check on WHY some of the candidates were being filibustered, and you may find that it’s for purely political purposes (Pickering, Estrada? etc...), and that little or nothing was wrong with the candidates.
[QUOTE=NOLA democrat]1. Is it not prudent for judges and justices to consider many sources in their quest for justice and authoring sound judicial opinions?
No. The oath they take is to defend and uphold the constitution and laws of the Unites States . . . . not to consider and take into account the laws, practices, precedents of Spain, France (unless it is a state issue in Louisiana), or anything else except THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. How difficult is that to understand or obey?
2. You state “Not the constitution” - how do you know this? How do you know that the Constitution and the laws of the US are not the PRIMARY source that the Justices use, while “considering” or reviewing other legal sources? You don’t. I think you are seriously drawing inferences here based more on your perception of the Court than on fact. [/QUOUTE]
Because they said so - they would condiser foreign opinions, precedents. How much more plainer can be their statements?
[/QUOUTE] 3. I was really looking for you to give me opinions from THIS court that have shaped your opinion in thinking the Court is destroying this country as you stated earlier.
Blackmon said that he could not define what was the beginning of life, so he came down on the side of the right of privacy of a woman to do with what she wanted with the life in her body. (Look, I am not a right wing pro-life nut. I have not made up my own mind on the abortion issue, but I sure as Hell do not believe that the SC can make the stretch that they did to decide they do not know when life begins, but found that a woman has the “right to prIvacy” in the constituion, so abortion is legal! What a STREEETTTCCCHHH!.)
4. You also mentioned federal court actions, like running school districts - you are wrong in saying that federal courts “run” school districts. They may monitor them in accordance with deseg lawsuits (like in St. John parish, EBR parish, Evangeline parish for examples) but the local school boards still run those school systems, you are off base with that Charley.
You are wrong about the federal courts “running the local school sysetms”. EVERY change in school, location, improvements, etc. were subject to review by a federal judge in hundreds of southern school districts for decades. Not day to day classrooms, but the functions of the local school board as policy bodies. In fact, I personally know a very moderate federal judge that felt both intimidated and embarrased that SC rulings required him to manage the minutea of local schools.
5. So do you feel that the Constitution, written in the 1700’s, is not a living breathing document that can be interpreted in different ways by different people?
No, no, a thousand times NOOOOOO. It is not to be “interpreted in differene ways by different people”. It is NOT a lliving, breathing document. What a crock! It means what it ways, nothing more or nothing less. Admittedly, one must interpret the terms in the sense of today’s society - militia in the 2nd does not mean just the National Guard today. But that is not “interpreting it” to say that theright of the citzens to bear arms is what that document says. What is essential -IMHO - and what Scalia has so elequently restated, is that the language is pretty clear, and if you think it does not apply today, first look to what the framers said in their debates (which are voluminous and very informing) and, if you disagree, AMEND THE CONSITUTION, don’t substitute your own opinion for what you think they would have meant if they were living in the 21st century! Would that I were as eloquent and articulate as Scalia. He has spoken so majestically on this subject, I cannot imagine that anyone who truly believes in a consitutional republic can credibly discredit his ideas.
