Congress Wants Power To Overturn SCOTUS Rulings

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-05-23 08:37pm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/

Stupidest bill ever?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-23 08:40pm

[Homer]Mmm... unconstitutional...[/Homer]

This is just trying to make a political statement. They don't seriously expect it to take off.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-05-23 08:40pm

Hey Congress: How about "HELL THE FUCK NO!!!"?

Making your font bigger doesn't compensate for your total lack of contribution, so I fixed it for you.
~Pablo

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 08:42pm

They already have that power with the ability to vote for Amendments. OH wait, you mean power that doesn't take a lot of effort. My bad.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-23 08:43pm

This has come up before, I believe. I'll repeat what I said then: Congress can no more give itself the power to overturn a SCOTUS decision than it can give itself the power to order back the tides. Even if this bill passed, it would be meaningless.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-23 08:46pm

Knife wrote:They already have that power with the ability to vote for Amendments. OH wait, you mean power that doesn't take a lot of effort. My bad.

*nod* The people who want this want a quick way to skip over the checks and balances in the system that is laid out in the Constitution.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-23 08:49pm

Senator Lewis: The bill passes!
SCOTUS: The bill is struck down. Bitch.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-05-23 09:15pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Senator Lewis: The bill passes!
SCOTUS: The bill is struck down. Bitch.

Maybe, maybe not. The power of judicial review is not specifically given to SCOTUS by the Constitution, IIRC.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-23 09:27pm

The Supreme Court would quickly find that law unconstitutional.

Andrew J wrote:Maybe, maybe not. The power of judicial review is not specifically given to SCOTUS by the Constitution, IIRC.

No, but it is given to the courts, er, sorry, the "activist judges." And guess who the highest collection of activist judges in the land is?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-05-23 09:29pm

Andrew J. wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Senator Lewis: The bill passes!
SCOTUS: The bill is struck down. Bitch.
Maybe, maybe not. The power of judicial review is not specifically given to SCOTUS by the Constitution, IIRC.

Actualy the very nature of the Supreme Court gives it judicial review. They are the final authority on the laws and hence their rullings stand.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-23 10:01pm

Actually, the Congress can -for all practical purposes- overturn the actions of the Supreme Court. The Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of ALL federal courts (although they seldom do it), icluding SCOTUS. If Congress wanted to effectively overturn a decision like say, the sodomy decision, they could make such cases off limits to the courts, then pass a law banning anal and oral sex.

Like I said, it's seldom used, but the Right is drunk with power and I wouldn't put it past them.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-05-23 10:12pm

An even better way for the Congress to make the power of the courts even more null would be to actually cut the funding of the courts. The thing about that is is tha it's legal and there is nothing in the constituion that prohibits the legistative branch from doing it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-23 10:23pm

Cutting off money to the courts would be the same as cutting judges' salaries: Unconstitutional. Of course, that never stopped right-wingers before...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-23 10:26pm

actually, it never stopped either side before...

Libertarian: Those who actually follow the constitution.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-23 10:28pm

Libertarian: Republican who is into bukake and smoking weed.

As opposed to a small "l" libertarian, which is as rare as a five-pound pearl.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-23 10:30pm

I am neither into bukkake nor smoking weed, I am into the constitution, which does not give the federal government the power to regulate either of those things

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-05-23 10:30pm

Is there anyone who can overrule Congress?

Like the PoTUS.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-23 10:38pm

Nope, Congress holds all the trump cards. They can remove Presidents, judges, even state governments by declaring that they no longer have representative governments. They can decide presidential elections. They can decide their own membership by either refusing to seat new members or expelling current ones.

It's kind of funny that Congress has all this power, but is so corrupt and cowardly that they let courts and presidents run all over them.

Part of it is to deflect responsibility (and to make sure they aren't held to account on election day) since for most of these schmucks, a seat in Congress is the best job they could ever hope for. They don't want to get kicked off the gravy train by taking a stand if they can help it.

So unelected judges got to prevent votes from being counted in Florida and an unelected President launched an illegal war in Iraq. Congress has disgraced itself again.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-05-23 10:43pm

Elfdart wrote:It's kind of funny that Congress has all this power, but is so corrupt and cowardly that they let courts and presidents run all over them.

Incorrect. This was intentional on the founders. They gave the most power to the branch that couldn't abuse it. The more people have the power, the less they can agree on things.

The founding fathers were very smart on this issue. They recognized that congress would have a lot of power but they also knew that congress ultimately can't agree to abuse this power and so there is no problem.

In theory congress has the most power. The president excerises the most personal power. The Supreme Court exercises the most power overall.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-05-23 10:44pm

Gandalf wrote:Is there anyone who can overrule Congress?

Like the PoTUS.

No, and there is no need. As powerful as congress is, its very makeup means that you never have to worry abouyt it abusing its power.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 11:15pm

Alyeska wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Is there anyone who can overrule Congress?

Like the PoTUS.
No, and there is no need. As powerful as congress is, its very makeup means that you never have to worry abouyt it abusing its power.

Though they really do give it a run for its money time to time.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-23 11:17pm

The courts only have power because the Congress and President want it that way. Both haven't hesitated to bitchslap the courts when they felt the need. In the late 1800s, Congress made the issue of railroad strikes off-limits for the courts. Just recently, they removed certain habeus corpus cases from their jurisdiction, too.

And of course there's Old Hickory, when he was told his ethnic cleansing against the Cherokees was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, responded "They have made their decision, let them enforce it." Sort of the precursor to Stalin's "How many divisions does the Vatican have?"

As much as they bitch about the courts, Congress and Presidents seldom do anything about it. Part of it is because they secretly agree with the Court's rulings and are glad someone else is taking the heat. The other is purely electoral.

For example, the Court just struck down state sodomy laws. Now a large percentage of people hate homosexuals. What better way to get the fag-bashers to the polls that to keep the issue (and gay marriage) in the public eye by squealing about how the Court is giving gays "special rights" or trying to "force that lifestyle on our children"? If the Court said "We're going to leave this to Congress to decide.", the House and Senate would have to take responsibility for the decision one way or the other.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-24 12:16am

Elfdart wrote:Libertarian: Republican who is into bukake and smoking weed.

As opposed to a small "l" libertarian, which is as rare as a five-pound pearl.

Actually, a Libertarian is a certain class of Republican that doesn't have political ambition.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-24 12:22am

To be precise: A libetarian is economically republican and socially democrat.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-24 12:23am

Congress already has the power to overturn a Supreme Court Ruling, well not exactly but they do have a major part of that power. It's called the amendment process.