Supreme Court vs Congress

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 24, 2004, 7:14 pm

I guess if you can't make them think like you want them to, you may as well just ignore their decisions and pass laws of your own.

I swear to God this country is going to hell. Another four years of this shit? You've got to be fucking kidding.

/inc Roe vs Wade reversal.. via congress.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR 3920 IH

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3920

To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 9, 2004
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 24, 2004, 7:35 pm

That's hilarious. Especially because the modern Supreme Court is dominated by conservatives.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » May 24, 2004, 9:11 pm

WTFF

This is just a bill and hasn't been enacted into law as of yet right?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 24, 2004, 9:13 pm

whoa that is just fucked up ... isn't the L branch for making laws ... not enforcing/intrepreting them ... isn't that the J branch? so wtf?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 24, 2004, 10:38 pm

The fun part is...this law would be immediately ruled unconstitutional...it clearly violates the seperation of powers...

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » May 24, 2004, 11:27 pm

but maybe Mr. DOOLITTLE wants to reverse the beastiality law so he can more than just talk to the animals?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 25, 2004, 1:51 am

Arborealus wrote:The fun part is...this law would be immediately ruled unconstitutional...it clearly violates the seperation of powers...

But, if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, wouldn't that be an invitation for Congress to enact it, so that they could make the law a law, since that is indeed what they want?

This is so fucked up.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 25, 2004, 2:07 am

Truant wrote:
Arborealus wrote:The fun part is...this law would be immediately ruled unconstitutional...it clearly violates the seperation of powers...
But, if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, wouldn't that be an invitation for Congress to enact it, so that they could make the law a law, since that is indeed what they want?

This is so fucked up.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment...Normal legislation cannot supercede Constitutional Law...

Yeah they are fucking idiots who fail entirely to understand the importance of seperation of powers...they need to go back to 9th grade civics...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 11:46 am

Congress doesn't need to make a law to override Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court needs to stop playing congressman by creating new laws.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 25, 2004, 12:05 pm

No court in the nation has created new laws, they've only interpreted the existing ones with respect to state and national constitutions.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » May 25, 2004, 12:13 pm

Siji wrote:/inc Roe vs Wade reversal.. via congress

While a brilliant scare tactic (nothing gets people's attentions faster) you obviously didn't read what you quoted.

What Siji quoted wrote:(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

So unless your favorite 2/3 of congress fundie rednecks jump in thier time machine and go back and stall Roe v. Wade from being put on the books until AFTER this act passes (which it likely never will, it's still flawed IMHO) then I'm pretty sure it's safe from imminent threat.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 12:54 pm

Vetiria wrote:No court in the nation has created new laws, they've only interpreted the existing ones with respect to state and national constitutions.

Sometimes the Supreme Court has "interpreted" existing laws into creating a new body of law. This is what prompted action in Congress. The SC has made a habit of overstepping their authority into the legislative realm.

Fix the root, don't tack on some new non-constitutional law as a bandaid.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 25, 2004, 12:55 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Congress doesn't need to make a law to override Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court needs to stop playing congressman by creating new laws.

Hi. Use your fucking head.

Can you provide me with one example of the Supreme Court drafting legislation, and therefore creating "new" laws?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 25, 2004, 1:13 pm

If a law is unconstitutional, it's just that. The SC has never, and never will, creates new laws regardless of what Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » May 25, 2004, 1:13 pm

They don't create new laws, Adex. They are generally ruling that particular laws are not valid.

The Roe v. Wade ruling made outlawing abortion unconstitutional, but rest assured, there are still a myriad of laws, rules and regulations that dictate other facets of it. It didn't create a giant "abortion fest" where we are all just willy-nilly running around aborting each other's babies.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 25, 2004, 1:41 pm

Ashur wrote:
Siji wrote:/inc Roe vs Wade reversal.. via congress
While a brilliant scare tactic (nothing gets people's attentions faster) you obviously didn't read what you quoted.
What Siji quoted wrote:(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
So unless your favorite 2/3 of congress fundie rednecks jump in thier time machine and go back and stall Roe v. Wade from being put on the books until AFTER this act passes (which it likely never will, it's still flawed IMHO) then I'm pretty sure it's safe from imminent threat.

Actually, I had a feeling someone would point that out. I guess I should have stated this in the original message.. but in any case.. Roe vs Wade will come to court again. Count on it. And if this bill passes, if the decision passed down by the supreme court again is not what the good ol' boys in congress want, they'll now have the ability to override it. So yes, I stick to my original statement that if this passes, and Roe vs Wade is held up in the next encounter, it will be reversed by congress. Or at least attempted to be.

Besides, with the shit this administration is pulling.. making up scare tactics aren't necessary.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » May 25, 2004, 1:50 pm

I may be wrong about this, but hasn't Rep. Lewis introduced this bill a couple of times before? And hasn't it been struck down with a quickness each time?

Crackpot bills get introduced all the time. They're alarming, yes - but usually the workings of our government take care of them in adequate fashion because they are so obviously absurd.

Much more of a threat to me are some of those that have already been passed - though I feel fairly confidant that, in time, many of those will be stricken down as unconstitutional. The judicial (when working) serves as a remarkably efficient bullshit filter.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » May 25, 2004, 2:09 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Congress doesn't need to make a law to override Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court needs to stop playing congressman by creating new laws.

Adex, please provide a valid example of this.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 2:40 pm

Here, you can pick up the theme here:

Conservative gripe about judicial excesses
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200 ... -3918r.htm

Liberal gripe about judicial excesses
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/dionne/20010223.htm

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » May 25, 2004, 3:24 pm

Highly biased commentary in either the conservative or liberal direction scares me. There wasn't one concrete example of the Supreme Court doing anything except interpreting law within the framework of the Constitution in either of those two articles, but the agendas and the spin were dizzying.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 8:08 pm

If an opinion piece from the the Washington Times doesn't fit in your realm of credible consideration then I'd be hard pressed to find information to suite your standard.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 25, 2004, 8:11 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:If an opinion piece from the the Washington Times doesn't fit in your realm of credible consideration then I'd be hard pressed to find information to suite your standard.

Oui works for me.. or perhaps Hustler in a pinch.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » May 25, 2004, 9:43 pm

Op-ed blurbs with disgustingly heavy slants to the right or left with no concrete examples to back them up aren't "credible consideration" or even "journalism" for that matter.

Don't believe everything you read.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 26, 2004, 10:33 am

I counted the citation of at least 6 examples both right and left of judicial bodies overstepping their authority.

The trick is to extract that information from what you read.

It takes practice I suppose.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 29, 2004, 4:44 am

i think maybe adex is refering to the "no you can't do it that way you have to do it this way and you have X days to do it this way or else" as a "forming a new law"

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » May 29, 2004, 12:24 pm

The courts are there to interpret law and set precedent. To say you dislike the SC for doing that is silly, it is their job. They never make laws, they determine whether they are legal and how to interpret and apply those laws. It is the very foundation of our system and the reason the people of the us has what freedoms they do.

And, as others have said, this bill is unconstitutional. Even if it were to pass it would be overruled by the very court it is trying to circumvent...and rightfully so.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 29, 2004, 4:26 pm

I saw 5 examples (6 if you count the PGA reference, which I didnt bother to research, but probably involves women in the male tour) in the first article, and 1 in the second, which was its entire focus.

Edit- Ok, now I did research the PGA thing, and actually its about the use of golf carts by semi-disabled players and whether the PGA tournament rules or the ADA takes precedence. Appeals courts have ruled both ways on the issue, and both interpretations seem potentially reasonable, so I dont think its exactly a clear case of judicial hooliganism. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/ ... artin.html for those interested.

The second was complaining that the SC said a person cant sue his own state under the Aemericans with Disabilities act, and the apparent basis for the complaint of the article was the section of the 11th ammendment they quoted in its entirety (which they specificly pointed out that they did) which says that the SC cant rule on on cases where a person sues a DIFFERENT state, or a foreigner sues the US or (presumeably) a US state. Since this case involved a person sueing his OWN state I fail to see how the quoted "cause for objection to the SC actions" applies...

In the first article the only example of interest was the Nevada tax issue which does seem like questionable behaviour even after some research on the subject, although I may well be missing some point of law which explains it. Given the sometimes laughable lack of credibility of some of the other examples cited in the article I'm not gonna go grab my pitchfork and torch and march on Nevada just yet... Using the removal of the "under god" reference from the pledge of allegience as a top-5 (6?) example of judges run amok? Please. Sheesh.

*Hugs*
Varia

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 31, 2004, 2:39 pm

No arguement persuades a partisan.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 31, 2004, 3:52 pm

And you are indeed so very very partisan.

Now if youve quite finished using lame cop-outs that you wouldnt get away with in third grade, let alone here...

Arguements can pursuade people, but you havent yet presented a compelling one- Of the 7 "examples" in those articles only 1 appears to stand any kind of test of reason (the nevada tax issue). Of the other 6, 1 is an ajudged "greater need" issue (affirmative action), which I agree with the principle of, but which I also think should have come with standards of completion (ie- the program will be deemed succesful and phased out when this, that and the other conditions have been fulfilled).

One is the PGA thing, which, given rulings both ways on the subject, is inherently unclear, and doesnt exactly stand out as new law in any case. The other 4 are either apparently inapplicable (sueing your own state) or just silly (under god). If you wish to be pursuasive I suggest you expand and expound on the Nevada example and how the Nevada laws/constitution should have trumped the federal laws/constitution or were not in conflict with them, or show how any of the four inapplicable examples are in fact applicable. Show me how removing "under god" makes new law, rather than merely preventing the people who inserted it into the pledge after the fact from making new (unconstitutional and therefor illegal) law.

I have clearly stated what you need to show, in order to convince me. In your own time, Mr Adex.

*Hugs*
Varia

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 12:58 am

I tire of the position where I'm the one doing all the research.

I refuse.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » June 1, 2004, 10:05 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:I tire of the position where I'm the one doing all the research.

I refuse.

That's funny, really. Not a month ago, you would post an argument, and then insist on the entire community doing research to prove you wrong, instead of providing research to prove yourself right.

Now, you make an argument, which most disagree with, and you provide a little (not very good) evidence, it gets taken apart and is actually shown NOT to be supportive evidence. And now you throw your hands up like a child because you keep having to search for bizzare and unknown evidence to support your opinions/arguments (which most disagree with). But either way, you wouldn't change your mind. So in a way, it's probably good that you don't want to find any research anymore, because it just wastes your, and our time.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 12:02 pm

You are totally wrong Truant.

There are like 20 of you and one of me. All of the time "I'm" the one who has to "provide" you with proof for this and that.

All you do is take. You seldom provide.

My life doesn't change one bit by convincing you of something.

Why should I burn my time in this manner?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 1, 2004, 12:14 pm

Good question, why do you? Why do I? Why do any of us? Why get up in the morning? Why go to work? Why bathe?

We just do it. If you're tired of failing to prove yourself right, then stop. The only person forcing you to do anything here is you. But saying you're tired of providing proof but you're way is right still is a cop out and is an admission of defeat.

Also your use of quotations marks was poor!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 12:24 pm

You assume that you can be convinced to something other than your stance.

I don't see this.

Maybe you can help in this manner.

Can you come up with a thread here where you had your mind changed on something?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 12:38 pm

Better yet,

Truant, Dregor

Show me threads where you've researched something.

Show me that you contribute. And I'll return the favor.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » June 1, 2004, 12:58 pm

Fine, i'll go through my 1800 posts and find some evidence of my research, since again...you won't do it for yourself.

Regardless, yes I am completely capable of changing my mind, SHOULD I FIND EVIDENCE TO DO SO. I refuse to believe something if there is no proof. I sincerely think you are incapable of changing your opinions.

The point is, my opinion is often times voiced by someone else who has more time to read this board, which is quite often since I can't read this from work. You have a very minority opinion, and I don't think just a minority opinion on this board, but a minority opinion in general. I'm serious, some of the things you come up with are so far fetched to me it worries me. I worry for your health and well being if you are so incapable of obvious logic, and that is not a burn.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 1, 2004, 1:42 pm

Umm there are several non-standard ways to reverse laws in this country, from the Supreme Court down to Juries refusing to find people guilty ( That even has some latin term I cannot think of at the moment but it sound impressive)

I do not think the Supreme Court can actually create a law, but creating precendence certainly defines law, and can utterly reverse the old concept of what the wording meant.

Can you imagine how much trouble we would have over consititutional law if someone had bothered to take notes and publish them indicating exactly what they MEANT, rather than what it says.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 2:52 pm

I've changed my mind before.

Recall if you will the thread where we were talking about Cheney not divesting his Haliburton interests before assuming office.

I came in thinking he was clean, but left convinced that he wasn't.

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » June 1, 2004, 4:29 pm

When trying to change the opinions of others it is customary to provide the evidence required to change said opinions.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 1, 2004, 5:22 pm

Sure. In recent memory, since mine doesn't go back very far due to years of television and video games, there was the Tillman thread where I was argued against and I changed my opinion. And for research there was one of Kylere's ever-so-amusing attempts to discredit Canada by posting some blurb about our Health Care system and I looked up a study which showed Canadian and American levels of health were about equal, better and worse in some aspects, but we spend a fraction of the cost. I seem to remember not being rebuked.

Ok? Are you feeling better now? Buck up kid-o. God doesn't smile down on Mr. Sourpusses.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 1, 2004, 5:30 pm

Nah, Dregor, the canadian medical thread was a poke not a serious attack. Everyone with half a clue knows that socialized health care means the rich get better coverage and the poor get worse coverage, same as in a free market system.

Now, about the way natives are treated in Canada, there is entirely another issue.

But that is moot, the fact is that smart people change their minds, dumb people are incapable of doing so.