Saige's Journal: Making the Supreme Court Irrelevant?

Surely all of you who grew up the U.S.A. took classes on civics and government and all that, where your teacher taught you all about the importance of checks and balances. That each branch has limited authority to prevent the other branches from going overboard.

Apparently, a number of our congresscritters didn't take such classes, didn't understand the classes when they took them, or just plain hate the idea that they don't have the final say.

What makes me say that? The introduction of H.R.3920. A bill which has the stated purpose "
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court".

So, who has decided this law is a good idea? Well, here are all the sponsors for this bill:

• Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2]
• Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6]
• Rep Collins, Mac [GA-8]
• Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4]
• Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4]
• Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2]
• Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2]
• Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5]
• Rep Hefley, Joel [CO-5]
• Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1]
• Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
• Rep Pombo, Richard W. [CA-11]

So, what made Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky decide that they should be able to declare the Supreme Court's rulings as irrelevant? Read the following quote from him:

I am a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures currently being considered by this Congress, aiming to define marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. However, I believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader, troubling trend toward judicial activism, a development with definitive implications beyond just the issue of marriage.

Yes, that's right folks. Apparently the idea of gay marriage is just so repulsive and dangerous to American society that we must destroy the fundamental system of checks and balances this country was founded on, just in case the court decides that same-sex couples can marry?

I don't know which I find scarier... such a blatant power grab which would destroy one of the basic foundations of this country's legal system and make the Constitution irrelevant, or that the people making the power grab would do it because they're scared of peoples' loving, committed relationships being legally recognized.

I almost wish I was in the district of one of these congresscritters, so that I could work to educate everyone in the district of what that person was doing and get them defeated in the next election.

I really hope this makes eleven people whose careers in politics are going to be over soon. A person who would consider such a law to be a good idea has a fundamental disagreement with the basic foundation of the US government.

Hey, at least they were honest...

[Ethelred Unraed]

...in naming it what they did, rather than "Act to Immerse Supreme Court in Do-Good Patriotism" or something like that. Though the Orwellian stuff may not have had the chance to take hold just yet.

Remember, everyone, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength (and Resistance is Futile).

Cheers,

Big Ethelred (who may or may not be watching you)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Irony

[DaytonCIM]

Judicial Activism

This is the new "catch phrase" that allows good men and women to openly discriminate against millions of Americans. I have heard the same argument being used today used by white leaders in Selma and Birmingham and Atlanta and Washington DC 40 years ago. Used by the wholly male membership of Congress at the turn of the century when women wanted the right to vote. Used by Southern Leaders when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

I've heard that the road to hell is paved with goo

so what happens when...

[turg]

...the Supreme Court finds this law to be unconsitutional?

Re:so what happens when...

[cyranoVR]

Then the Excutive Branch gets to enforce their ruling!

Wait...

Can they make it retroactive to Dec. 2000?

[Cy Guy]

nm

holy shit that's bad

[FortKnox]

writing to congressman AND senator AND mayor AND governer (AND anyone else that will listen)... that's just flat out dictator-group!

Makes the Supreme Court accountable

[bmetzler]

This is a good thing because it makes the Supreme Court accountable for upholding the constitution. Not writing their own laws and pushing them on American people.

What are we supposed to do when the Supreme Court rejects the wishes of our elected representatives? The Supreme Court was *not* intended to function as a monarchy.

-Brent

Re:Makes the Supreme Court accountable

[Saige]

What are we supposed to do when the Supreme Court rejects the wishes of our elected representatives?

The whole point is that they're supposed to do that when the legislature oversteps it's bounds.

If the legislature unanimously passed a law that anyone who said "I hate the president" could be immediately executed by the police, the Supreme Court would overturn the law for violating the consitution. Which means either rewrite a law that doesn't violate the constitution, or pass a constitutional amendment.

Re:Makes the Supreme Court accountable

[DaytonCIM]

What are we supposed to do when the Supreme Court rejects the wishes of our elected representatives?

Ummm, that's called Seperation of Powers. Basically, the Supreme Court is not beholden to your elected representitive for anything except confirmation. The Supreme Court is beholden to the US Constitution.

Just because you think something is right, doesn't make it legal. Same goes for myself.

The point of the Supreme Court is to balance the popular notions of the day against the timelessness of the Const