Bill to allow Congress to overrule S. Court

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macguymike, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. macguymike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    California
  2. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
  3. dethl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    What utter bullcrap. I pray this never passes. Looks like I'm sending my senators and representatives a nice letter.
     
  4. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
  5. Plutoniq macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #5
    First we have the Patriot Act which blatently ignores individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, then the FCC passes a law which enables corporations to monopolize as many news media sources as they want, now this? Funny how all this crap goes down during Bush's dirty administration........ founding fathers would be rollin' in their graves! I don't care if your republican or democratic, it would be INSANE and detrimental to the future of this country to vote republican this upcoming election.
     
  6. Plutoniq macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #6
    No, unfortunatley its real! Dirty dirty political tyranny....
     
  7. MorganX macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #7
    I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance. Look at runaway judges allowing gay marriages where it is illegal. (That is not inteded to debate gay marriages, but to show that judges also have their own agendas and checks and balances must be in all phases of law.)

    A stacked Supreme Court can force their own, or their parties agendas on the nation. I think 2/3 of both houses reaching a concensus should enable them to overturn Supreme court rulings.
     
  8. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #8
    Seems to run along the same lines as Congress being able to over rule a Presidential veto. Doesn't mean that checks and balances are gone, it's just adding another check and balance to the mix. I'm not yet decided to support or not, but I at least consider it a reasonable idea.
     
  9. Plutoniq macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #9
    The Supreme Court is there to protect peoples rights granted by The Constitution on a federal level.....it aint about opinion, it's interpretation. They are there to protect YOUR rights, and only that. You think Congress's main agenda is just that.....BLAH!!!!! That passed the Patriot Act, just slipped it on through while everyones attention was blinded by the "imminent threat" of terrorism in their backyard. How about giving the President right for Pre-emptive attack.....what a load of absolute crap, if every Country made this there policy we'd be in a perpetual WWIII.
     
  10. railthinner macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    #10
    The solution then would be to change the method for appointing Judges and to limit their term (stay, reign, whatever you would call it.) This idea of activist judges is a load of poo poo. Perhaps another, better solution would be then to have a congressional committee who regularly reviewed the courts actions. If they can actually prove a judges rulings or courts actions are indeed unconstitutional (like deciding who wins a presidential election -- and I just use THIS as an example, not to bring up the debate) then you'd have a hell of a fight on your hands.
     
  11. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #11
    Uh, yeah, 2/3 of the congress CAN overturn supreme court rulings, it's called an AMENDMENT, and it's difficult to get for a reason.

    The court is there to determine which is right-- citizens, or the law. The law HAS to be in line with the constitution. MUST. it's the only real inherent rule in the country. When laws are NOT in line with the constitution, the court must strike them down. Obviously, if the law is on the books, congress has already FAILED in doing their job, as they've passed an unconstitutional law. The supreme court is the citizens' last line of defense for the constitution. This would undermine that.

    The gay union issue, it's a great indicator of why checks and balances are still working. To say that there was judicial activism, or that there was in fact ANY impropriety, even moral, would be wrong.

    I say, if they're going to push for this kind of garbage, liberals need to tack on a bit about it being ILLEGAL (and quite punishable) for senators to vote in favor of unconstitutional laws. But, then, who would determine what's constitutional? the supreme court would be stripped and powerless to do this.

    paul
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    Im not saying im for or against but we do give the supreme court to much authority in my view. why should they get appointed for life?? also the Judges have been making law these days rather then enforcing current law. law can be bent to back your agenda and this has been going on for to long. who do these guys answer too? This is the problem. sure we need checks and balance but who checks and balances these guys?
     
  13. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #13

    I think this bill would be kinda pointless in the first place because the Supreme Court would strike it down as being unconstitutional.

    Of course it will be a sad day in our democracy when we have to pass admendments instead of laws just so that the courts don't overturn them!
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    Keep in mind many consider this court to be "stacked" towards the conservative side of the house. yet some of their most recent decisions have been in my mind most liberal. Liberal from the standpoint that they have tried to fully understand the words that our founding fathers gave us. We have not always agreed with their decisions (on both sides).

    i am not sure, but it seems that this is another attempt by conservatives to achieve what they can't through the law. I think that they see that in the issue of gay marriages/civil unions and gun control that their days are numbered. The same conservatives that celebrated the 'coronation' of Bush after the 200 elections.

    You may look at gay marriages (to use it as an example) as the courts deciding social policy. But would you fault the courts that felt that owning slaves wrong? Or that the idea of inter-racial marriage was wrong? Or the idea of separate but equal education wrong? 30-50 years ago you might find yourself siding on the side of "discrimination".

    It is the courts that need to address the law, but also the state and federal constitutional law. At least to my knowledge, using your example of gay marriages, the courts have found that the respective constitutions are being violated. You may not like the result, but equal rights means equal rights for all, even for those that you might not think deserve equal rights.

    The rumble you hear is the founding fathers turning over in their graves yet again (first time was after passage of the Patriot Act).
     
  15. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #15
    And what court cases decided any of these???
     
  16. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    Amen to that! It is also time to eliminate the Electoral College.
     
  17. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #17
    Good god, man, have some clue what you're talking about before you post. Can't speak for the first one, because i don't think any court case actually did reference that (i could be wrong), but

    2. in 1967, the supreme court struck down the final ban on interracial marriages. This ban was still effective in 18 states. In the remaining 32 states, prior court cases had already overturned the interracial ban.

    3. again, supreme court, Brown v Board of Education, ruling was that "separate but equal" is wrong.

    So, there we have two of the three, handled by the very court we're arguing about. I'm sure the country would be much better if congress could have reversed these decisions.

    on a sidenote, i agree that the life-terms on the court are wrong, it should be 8 or 10 year terms. Also, the supreme court is understaffed... i believe it can have up to 15 justices. Might be nice to have some diversity there.

    And the electoral college, that's right out. antequated POS.

    paul
     
  18. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #18
    Thanks Paul, I was working on civic class education form years ago. The issue that some forget is that while we remember the Supreme Court decisions, we rarely remember the state and local court decisions (and is this not the basis for many Supreme court decisions?).

    the point being is that I may hate purple people. But the Constitution allows them the same rights as "most" others in this country. If the courts say that purple people have the same rights i have little choice to support that. That is the price we pay for having the Constitution. Otherwise go live under a dictatorship that you support!
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    To point one... It was important enough that an actual amendment to the constitution was passed that read:

    AFAIK, this officially ended slavery.
     
  20. macguymike thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #20
    Here's the thing...


    Not quite on either case. Note that this bill would allow Congress to, after acting in a way that is unconstitutional, then be able defend that act against a ruling from the Supreme Court.

    That's the unbalancing aspect. Not kosher at all in my book. And definitely not the same as Congress overruling a veto.
     
  21. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #22
    First we have the Patriot Act which blatently ignores individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, then the FCC passes a law which enables corporations to monopolize as many news media sources as they want, now this? Funny how all this crap goes down during Bush's dirty administration........ founding fathers would be rollin' in their graves! I don't care if your republican or democratic, it would be INSANE and detrimental to the future of this country to vote republican this upcoming election.

    Like the Democrats are any better. We need to realize that both parties are different sides to the same coin. Their objective is governmental control of our lives.
     
  22. briankonar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    #24
    YES! GIVE THEM THE HEAVE!!

    i don't know how i feel about this. can anyone give a little more explanation as to the actual contents of the web site (i'm lazy). would congress have the ability to veto only if a certain percentage are in agreement, or do they replace the supreme court entirely? i agree the supreme court is the average american's last line of defence against corporate america, but i also feel that a great majority of judges enforce their own interpretations of the law, (reducing minimum sentences for good behavior etc. or even showing mercy on parents who kill their children by putting them in insane asylums, etc, gay marriage is another can of worms which i believe the constitution should make legal if all men are created equal then equal rights for everyone).
     
  23. macguymike thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #25
    The idea behind life-terms when it comes to Supreme Court judicial appointments is that if a judge is concerned about the possibility of re-appointment to a seat, he or she will not make rulings based on impartial reason but instead may make decisions that are more likely to be deemed popular.
     

Share This Page