Quick quiz: What do we call a system of government in which an unelected cadre of self-professed wise men make decisions for a nation of millions, all the while insulting those millions as ignoramuses?
We used to call it tyranny. Now, we call it an “independent judiciary.”
At least that’s the way the Left sees it. The role of the judiciary in this country, according to liberals, is to act as a sort of super-Senate, qadis on the hill who decide based on whim and fancy how the rest of us should live. The American people are benighted morons; the judiciary is full of brilliant moral thinkers. They must rule us.
This perspective, of course, would have sickened the Founding Fathers, who established an independent judiciary in order to adjudicate legal disputes, not to rewrite laws at will. In fact, the founders recognized the threat of judicial omnipotence, which is why they wrote the Constitution so as to limit the judiciary: The judiciary cannot control its own purse strings, nor can it even define its own jurisdiction. Under Article III of the Constitution, Congress’ power over the judiciary doesn’t end with up-or-down judicial nominee votes — Congress actually has the power to take whole areas of law away from the judiciary completely.
Congress can create inferior courts, which means it can eliminate them, too. As to the jurisdiction of those courts, Congress can define it. Congress can even define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” In other words, Congress can carve out exceptions and regulations taking full swaths of judicial oversight away from the judiciary.
This is not an accidental inclusion in the Constitution. It was an integral part of the document’s construction. The Founding Fathers built the government around the principle that powers would check one another; the supposed exception to that rule has always been the judiciary, which remains unchecked. But it wasn’t supposed to remain unchecked — Congress was supposed to have the power to check the judiciary. Anti-federalist Robert Yates feared that Congress would not be able to do anything about such a usurping judiciary: “There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions.
So the courts care about their political preferences, the elected officials care about their political preferences… but the people somehow won't care about their political preferences? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Since the current hubbub is about Walker and Proposition 8, what indicates that Walker doesn't care about the Constitution? What would have been a better way for Walker to rule in such a way that persons receive equal legal status and protection under the Constitution?
And if Walker ruled that pedophiles should have equal legal status? Perhaps Satanists slaughtering virgins in a quasi-religious rite should have constitutional protection? The idea that two consenting adults should be able to get married means that brother can marry sister, and father can marry daughter. You ok with that?
Are you looking for a Local Health Club that fits your workout Style ? Meet Your Personal Trainer is a unique online community that puts you in touch with a diverse range of Gyms & health Clubs nation-wide. Whether you’re looking for a yoga instructor, a health club nearby, a Pilates instructor or an Personal Trainer , we guarantee that we have a gym on board to meet your specific criteria.
Tell us what you’re seeking, and we’ll connect you with personal trainers, corporate fitness professionals, boot camps, gyms & health clubs and much, much more… Our community is an interactive personal trainer directory that lets you review and talk to personal trainers before you commit to a meet-up. Each health Club has a has a 60 second video profile that allows you to gain a quick, personable insight into the Health club. If you are located in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane & Adelaide, Then our gym directory will point you in the right direction towards your nearest local gym.
It is not neccessary to dig too deep..!!!
The only democracy in the Middle East is living proof of a JUUDICIARY DICTATORSHIP
It has been the private fiefdom of one AHARON BARAK , the same one the recently appointed justice Ms. KAGAN admires.
Being that ISRAEL has no constitution, the Supreme Court sequestered the legislative
function of the Parlament (KNESET) and even appoints the judges nationwide.
The trouble in the USA and elsewhere is that SUPREME COURTS can LEGISLATE de facto, by means of JURISPRUDENCE ….
Now all we need is a Congress with the huevos to stand up and DO this!!
Re: "Congress can even define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court…"
Like it did when it passed the Detainee Act. The Supreme Court made some excuse to render that limit null and void. In fact. it even used original intent [of congress] when it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_A…
You are confusing the proper end goal with the constitution itself. They are separate issue because the constitution defines the end goal even if you don't like the end goal itself. By declaring the end-goal as the constitution you destroy the democratic process that created it in the first place since the end-goal you have in mind may not be the end-goal of the democratic process that created it had in mind. The sanctity of the democratic process must be maintained even if the end-goal of that is not desirable.
The left has always known and used the power of the courts to get what they want when a plebiscite fails them. They know Americans in America want to be a nation and people of laws. So the left has cunningly used this against America and Americans.
I say okay and let judges make law and trump the will of the people. Fine, but we get to hold them accountable. If a judge lets a pedophile off with a lax or weak imprisonment and he commits another crime, the judge not only loses his seat but his compensation, and he can be sued by the victims family. A judge who renders against the will of the majority like in Prop 8 will be put up to referendum in the next election cycle. Since he ruled against the majority he should face them and the consequences. So on and so forth.
We should also review past cases of judicial reach. Stare decisis should be abolished.
Every lower court should be scrapped all together so that the federal government has to use state courts to enforce federal law. State courts can then declare it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.
Ben:
The congress cannot remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over disputes where the state itself is a party. Were it to do this the court would be effectively eliminated from the government.
Read all of Article III and you won't make a fool of yourself again.
If this opinion be sound,” he wrote, “then indeed is our Constitution is a complete… act of suicide.
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their… power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
Thomas Jefferson
In this grand design of things you actually secure a B- with regard to effort and hard work. Where you confused me personally ended up being in all the specifics. As people say, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be more correct at this point. Having said that, allow me inform you just what exactly did do the job. The text is certainly highly engaging and that is most likely the reason why I am taking an effort to opine. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Second, while I can easily see a leaps in logic you come up with, I am not certain of how you appear to unite your details that help to make your conclusion. For now I will, no doubt yield to your position however hope in the near future you connect your dots much better.