The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court
In short:
Congress may overrule the Supreme Court, in a clear violation of constitutionally granted powers, and piss all over the idea of checks and balances in the government.
Shadowhawk
Eric from ASVS
"Sufficiently advanced technology is often indistinguishable from magic." -- Clarke's Third Law
"Then, from sea to shining sea, the God-King sang the praises of teflon, and with his face to the sunshine, he churned lots of butter." -- Body of a pharmacy spam email
It isn't going to pass, it is just to generate more whining and publicity against "Judicial Activism."
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Eh at least it won't pass, right? Militarist shitheads try to reinstitute the draft vainly every couple years.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Everybody keep your pants on. Congress can't give itself the power to overturn the Supreme Court any more than it can give itself the power to fly if all its members flap their arms hard enough.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Eh at least it won't pass, right? Militarist shitheads try to reinstitute the draft vainly every couple years.
An attempt to ban gay marriage in the Constitition didn't pass either (admittedly by a relatively small margin)...
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
Isn't Congress' check on SCOTUS their ability to say who becomes Supreme Court Justices? That isn't exactly overriding it.
Alyeska wrote:Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
Isn't Congress' check on SCOTUS their ability to say who becomes Supreme Court Justices? That isn't exactly overriding it.
No, but they've been known to pass bills after a previous and almost identical bill was deemed unconstitutional. For example, President Clinton's "Religious Freedoms" act was passed a second time, in all but identical form, after the Supreme Court shot it down the first time.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
Alyeska wrote:Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
Isn't Congress' check on SCOTUS their ability to say who becomes Supreme Court Justices? That isn't exactly overriding it.
I seem to recall that congress can override SCOTUS directly, but it requires a massive majority. Either that or congress can impeach. I'm not sure which.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
Isn't Congress' check on SCOTUS their ability to say who becomes Supreme Court Justices? That isn't exactly overriding it.
No, but they've been known to pass bills after a previous and almost identical bill was deemed unconstitutional. For example, President Clinton's "Religious Freedoms" act was passed a second time, in all but identical form, after the Supreme Court shot it down the first time.
It won't work no matter how they word it. This is a blantant violation of the Constitution.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote: It won't work no matter how they word it. This is a blantant violation of the Constitution.
I agree. However, the Supreme Court's inability to enforce its decisions and its deferrence to the Executive Branch has been used to damage the Court's authority in the past. Congress's willingness to pass all but identical pieces of legislation that have been deemed unconstitutional is one way in which Congress has shirked Judicial authority. That being said, this bill better not pass since it is BLATANTLY unconstitutional. On the other hand, a judge's duty is to enforce the law, and there are judges who disregard the law due to their misplaced idealism. I do think that this is a problem that the government needs to address, and unfortunately I don't know of a good way to do it.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
If the Constitution truly limited the powers of the state, then American money wouldn't say "In God We Trust". The only reason America is not a theocracy is that a sufficiently large percentage of the population doesn't want it to become one. The Constitution certainly didn't stop people from turning it into something very similar to a theocracy during the 1950s.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
And there are sick fucks who still spew apologetics for McCarthy; I know a kid who carries around Coulter's Treason like the Bible, and naturally he's a hardline Catholic Republican.
He's a threat to liberty.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
It will never pass. But it's the thought that counts.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
If SCOTUS strikes something down, and Bush ignores them, he'll fry. No one has defied the Supreme Court since Andrew Jackson and to do so again would create a public uproar the likes of which haven't been seen since Vietnam.
This is a cute little pipedream, that's al.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
Alyeska wrote:Congress already has the ability to override the Supreme Court. All their trying to do is make it easier, and its not going to succede. Since this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment the Supreme Court can overturn it with ease and they will if it gets passed.
Isn't Congress' check on SCOTUS their ability to say who becomes Supreme Court Justices? That isn't exactly overriding it.
They can pass a Constitutional amendment, if they can get the states to cooperate.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
RedImperator wrote:They can pass a Constitutional amendment, if they can get the states to cooperate.
I'm wondering, what would happen if they passed an amendment that violated the "Congress shall make no law respecting..." part of Amendment I? Wouldn't that amendment be inherently unconstitutional?
Darth Wong wrote:If the Constitution truly limited the powers of the state, then American money wouldn't say "In God We Trust".
There's more than one interpretation of the First Amendment. The "accomidationist" view says that "an establishment of religion" means exactly that--a singular establishment of religion. Saying in general that the United States trusts in God is allowable.
Of course, I don't subscribe to that interpretation and neither do you, but William Rhenquist apparently does, and so do other constitutional scholars (conservative ones mostly).
The only reason America is not a theocracy is that a sufficiently large percentage of the population doesn't want it to become one. The Constitution certainly didn't stop people from turning it into something very similar to a theocracy during the 1950s.
This is true of any democracy. Free societies are, unfortunately, free to vote themselves into shackles.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
RedImperator wrote:They can pass a Constitutional amendment, if they can get the states to cooperate.
I'm wondering, what would happen if they passed an amendment that violated the "Congress shall make no law respecting..." part of Amendment I? Wouldn't that amendment be inherently unconstitutional?
There's no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment. Amendments by their nature change the Constitution, and the framers never thought to "freeze" any part of the Constitution in place. If an amendment passed that made, say, the Roman Catholic Church the state religion, it would override the Establishment Clause.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
HemlockGrey wrote:If SCOTUS strikes something down, and Bush ignores them, he'll fry. No one has defied the Supreme Court since Andrew Jackson and to do so again would create a public uproar the likes of which haven't been seen since Vietnam.
This is a cute little pipedream, that's al.
Not necessarily. Dick Gephardt promised to ignore the Supreme Court on affirmative action if he was elected President last summer and no one really cared.
'course, Gephardt never really had much of a shot anyway, to be fair.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:Not necessarily. Dick Gephardt promised to ignore the Supreme Court on affirmative action if he was elected President last summer and no one really cared.
What a cocksucker.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
