General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show - [View all]Zorra
(27,670 posts)and believing that the power of the SCOTUS, an unelected entity, needs to be limited, is somehow not progressive?
Has black become white, up become down, etc., somehow?
Breaking News, this morning:
More: 4 liberal US Supreme Court justices skeptical that entire health care law should fall, say decision should be up to Congress - Reuters
Submitted Mar. 28, 2012, 8:56 a.m. by editor
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGO2rtQcM/2012/03/28/more-4-liberal-us-supreme-court-justices-skeptical-that-entire-health
How 'bout this: Thomas Jefferson is generally considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party. The quote below is self-explanatory. Would you not consider TJ progressive, especially given the era?
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson--1823
He was, IMO, absolutely correct. TJ was a really,really smart guy.
Yes, of course the Constitution needs enforcement. Unfortunately, possibly the biggest mistake the founders made was not seeing that under the vague guidelines with which they empowered SCOTUS in the Constitution, the 1% was given free rein to corrupt the court in their interests, and against the interests of the people. The SCOTUS, almost immediately after its institution, assumed absolute power over US Law and Congress. This is how/why we got Corporate Personhood, pResident George W. Bush, and the Citzen's United vs the FEC decision, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, a SCOTUS justice can be impeached. That's never going to happen, because the federal legislature has also been compromised by the 1%.
Paper realities are pleasant to think about, but real people in actual physical reality are the agents that interpret legal issues.
SCOTUS is obviously corrupt, legislates from the bench, and primarily serves the 1%. (4 liberal justices not included in this generality).
I'm curious...do you also believe SCOTUS has the power to overturn Constitutional Amendments?
Do also believe, from reading Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution that SCOTUS has the authority to declare parts of the Constitution moot? Or that the founders intended to give Scotus this much power?
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The way many here seem to be reading the Article III, section II, indicates that they believe that the SCOTUS has the ultimate blanket power to decide what is legal and what is not legal. What is to stop them from declaring parts of the Constitution moot? From declaring Constitutional Amendments moot? After all, if they have supreme legal authority, and can overturn statutes passed by Congress, what stops them from declaring that Constitutional Amendments are illegal?
Given the actions of the SCOTUS in the past 13 years (Bush vs Gore particularly), and upon examining the personnel that currently make up the body of the SCOTUS, it is not difficult to see a 1% (RW) attempt to either continue to reinterpret the Constitution in the interests of the 1%, and/or partially dismantle the Constitution.
Specifically, if sometime in the future, Congress were to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring Corporate Personhood, and Citizens United, etc, moot.
I'm just sayin'...ya know...
Thanks