I think someone here has already done this, but i'll go over it again:
Article III, Section 2 reads, in part:
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 (this clause was amended by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in February 1795, which reads, in toto: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign 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.
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.
The third paragraph of Article III, Section 2, deals with trial by jury, and is not germaine here, so i have left it out. I have underlined a key passage in this Section of which Fox is either ignorant, or willfully ignores. Note the language, " . . . with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Your contention that the Supremes have total power is absurd and hysterical.
I understand that the courts don't manufacture cases Wandel and only deal with what is presented to them. But sheesh, even doing work comp work I knew what judge to ask for and what judge to refuse in order to get the decision I wanted. And we knew exactly what case law would be cited, with all subsequent cases added on, to get a specific ruling in favor of the worker.
So finally we got a reformer in the state insurance regulatory agency who managed to get some more specific guidelines written into the law and that reined in some of the more flagrant abuses. While it was still bad, it was much better than it was.
But at the state level, you can correct abuses by just passing a law. Why is that so unreasonable a concept at the federal level?
Do you willfully ignore what others write? Do you have to be beaten over the head with something for it to sink in?
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.[/size]
That is all well and good Setanta--Parodos and Debra have also been beating that drum--but it does not address the issue of the Court having the ability to declare any exception or regulation as the Congress shall make unconstitutional nor does it address the problem of the court that uses precedence to ignore whatever exceptions and regulations that the Congress makes.
If the court says Congress can't do it, what recourse does Congress have? For instance, if Congress passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and the Court said they could not do that under the equal protection clause, then Congress is screwed. If Congress passed a law making it legal for estblishments to offer smoking sections or be an all-smoking establishment, the Court could say no on a number of fronts. And Congress would be screwed.
I do NOT wish to debate either of those issues here and use them as examples only. So the only recourse left is amendment to the Constitution in these matters? I just think there has to be a better way.
You are hopelessly obstuse. You think you know it all, you think you are better informed than everyone else here, and you demonstrate a density which would allow you to sit on a suburban newspaper and dangle your legs.
I'll not waste anymore time on you.
Oh thank you THANK YOU Setanta. I appreciate that more than you will ever understand.
Fox writes:
Quote:That is all well and good Setanta--Parodos and Debra have also been beating that drum--but it does not address the issue of the Court having the ability to declare any exception or regulation as the Congress shall make unconstitutional nor does it address the problem of the court that uses precedence to ignore whatever exceptions and regulations that the Congress makes.
The courts can't declare all laws unconstitutional. That is just downright BS. The courts have to have a legitimate constitutional question before they can even accept the case. Your hypothetical argument doesn't hold water in the real world. I challenge you to find me one case that doesn't cite the constitution or other laws in its ruling. You might disagree with the ruling of the court in their interpretation of the constitution but the constititution specifically states that the court ruling is the ONLY LEGAL one.
Courts use precedence because otherwise we would be litigating the same case over and over. All cases are able to be appealed even if they cite precedent. The fact that higher courts refuse to take them is not simply because of the precedent but because the issue has been DECIDED. There is no reason to decide the issue again. If I decide that my child goes to bed at 9pm does that mean I have to redecide that every day? Does it mean I have to decide it again if daylight savings time happens?
Cite me one real example where courts have used "precedence" to "ignore whatever exceptions and regulations that the Congress makes." Your argument seems to be that courts shouldn't be able to do what you have never shown them to do. Well, lets start by finding a single instance of them doing what you claim you think they do.
I know I can find hundreds of laws that the courts have never declared unconstitutional so your claim that the courts can rule on "any law" is specious at best.
You are demanding we address an issue that doesn't even exist in the real world. Find a real example and then we can address it.
No, I've asked what I felt were reasonable questions and I am apparently bad for asking. I'll plead ignorance in being able to contribute anything here and will accept that my questions
are inappropriate and will not be answered. I hope you guys are right that everything is just perfect the way it is. Be well.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know Wandel. I'm pretty sure it never occured to Hamilton that judges would be looking to European courts using European law as a basis for their own rulings. Some of us find that at least incongruous and judicial activism at best and wrong and dangerous at worst and strongly disapprove of the practice. Given the propensity of some judges to create law that coincides with their person ideology and the possibility of really bad rogue judges, I would like to know that judges are not given godlike stature, that judges cannot make law with impunity, and that bad jurisprudence has no repercussions.
The process of impeachment is lengthy, painful, and blessedly rare. But given the current climate and how I believe Hamilton viewed the courts, I think he would approve of our putting into place the means to remove a rogue judge from office at such time as that might be necessary. The current law makes that extremely difficult if not impossible to do.
Hamilton and the other Founders were aware that the Constitution and the entire system would prevail only when administered by men of good reputation, solid moral integrity, and good common sense. I think they might not have envisioned an America so diverse in ideology and values as we have now.
I'm interested to know the European law and courts you're referring to Foxfyre. Since American law is derived from English common law it makes sense for any judge to refer to decisions in common law jurisdictions to be informed. There's nothing recent about that and nothing unusual about it.
I would be very hesitant to say that about a judge who was using a reference to French law, for example, with its origins in Roman Law and a complete different form of jurisprudential thinking.
Fox writes:
Quote:No, I've asked what I felt were reasonable questions and I am apparently bad for asking. I'll plead ignorance in being able to contribute anything here and will accept that my questions
are inappropriate and will not be answered. I hope you guys are right that everything is just perfect the way it is. Be well.
Its not that your questions are unanswered. We do answer them. Its like you don't register anything about the answer.
Quote:So maybe some defined checks and balances on the courts would be a bad idea or maybe its a good idea. I'm trying to educate myself on the subject.
There are defined checks and balances. Its called amendment.
Quote:
And how bad do the rulings have to get before you would change your view that a bad ruling should have no consequences?
We have the ability to respond to rulings any time we disagree with them. Its called amendment. The answer to this question is in Fed 78. We change amend the constitution when we are no longer "happy" with the way it is working.
Quote:
I do NOT wish to debate either of those issues here and use them as examples only. So the only recourse left is amendment to the Constitution in these matters? I just think there has to be a better way.
There is only one way. Its called amendment. For a very real reason. The people control it through the constitution and only the people can change it.
Quote:So finally we got a reformer in the state insurance regulatory agency
States are not the Federal govt. There is no relevence between your state and the Federal govt. States have state constitutions that control how state courts are governed.
Quote:So does the court get to write its own job description and can arbitraril make that prettymuch anything it wants?
No, and you have provided nothing to show how you came to even consider this a factual question.
Fox writes:
Quote:No, I've asked what I felt were reasonable questions and I am apparently bad for asking. I'll plead ignorance in being able to contribute anything here and will accept that my questions
are inappropriate and will not be answered.
Fox, please tell us which of your questions was not answered.
I am sorry but I get upset when someone accuses me of something that I feel I did not do. I have tried to answer every one of your questions. Your statement says to me that you have ignored my answers. Instead of dealing with the answer you just ask the question differently then want to know why no one has answered your questions. There is a new book out that describes people that act like you are doing and refuse to accept answers that they don't like. It is called "On Bullshit".
Fox, if you wish to discuss our answers to your questions, fine. That is what reasoned debate is all about. You refute our answers to your questions preferably with sources and we then would discuss your statements. I did a rather long citation about how I thought you were mistaken about Fed 78. You IGNORED it. Why?
I stated there couldn't be "rogue judges" based on Fed 78. Rather than disputing my statement you just ignored it and went on making the same claim. I considered that rude but I bit my tongue and tried to respond to your next question.
Quote:I hope you guys are right that everything is just perfect the way it is.
We never said that everything was perfect. We only said it is the way it is, it is the best way we can see, and presented reasons for why that is. You have not done anything other than say "there's a problem" while not defining it in a real way or presenting a realistic solution.
This is frustrating. Have American courts been using European (continental Europe I mean) judgements to inform their decisions or have they merely been referring to common law jurisdictions? Or am I correct in assuming that there is some sort of push by US legislators to closet American jurisprudential thinking from any "outside" influences - such as contemporary common law decisions?
If so I find it ironic in that one of the judges of the High Court of Australia (the late Lionel Murphy) was castigated as an "activist judge" some years ago for daring to refer to decisions of the US Supreme Court to inform himself.
If anyone can help on this I would appreciate it.
This.
This is the most important discussion of the current era.
Those espousing the arguments of Ann Coulter and Tom Delay would deny us all the rights defined by the US Constitution. They, and you, may succeed but you will have accomplished, not the furthering of freedom, but the demise of a government whose mandate is the protection of the unworthy.
Go ahead protect the powerful.
It's the safe thing to do.
Not the right thing.
Just safe.
Not safe for you, you dope.
Just safe for them.
Joe(go ahead, yah maroon.)Nation
goodfielder,
please don't give up. as far as continental europe is concerned, the u.s. supreme court has used examples from countries such as france as part of the rationale behind their decision. there are some specific supreme court decisions. i will try to find some examples.
Parados, I'm just back for a minute. I thought I had consistently responded to your points, but I also thought my questions were not being addressed. I kept getting the same legaleze from you and Debra, which is fine, but it was not helpful to me and I sure as hell wasn't in a position to be helpful to you. I can and have read the Constitution and acknowledged that. And I believe I understand it both in spirit and intent. I can and have read the Federalist papers and acknowledged that and I am pretty sure I have those down as to spirit and intent. And I was ready to move on to apply these to more immediate questions in my mind and that I believe are current concerns on the political scene but again, all I did was irritate everybody and get interpreted in ways I didn't intend or mean.
What the hell is a 'factual question' anyway?
So as I said before, I'm apparently in over my head here and I am just going to observe. Apologies for any misunderstandings.
goodfielder wrote:Have American courts been using European (continental Europe I mean) judgements to inform their decisions or have they merely been referring to common law jurisdictions? Or am I correct in assuming that there is some sort of push by US legislators to closet American jurisprudential thinking from any "outside" influences - such as contemporary common law decisions?
There were at least two recent decisions where the U.S. Supreme Court used European law as part of its rationale. Early this year in Roper v. Simmons, the court cited international legal trends against juvenile death penalties. In 2003, the court struck down a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas. That decision relied in part on an opinion from the European Court of Human Rights.
wandeljw wrote:goodfielder,
please don't give up. as far as continental europe is concerned, the u.s. supreme court has used examples from countries such as france as part of the rationale behind their decision. there are some specific supreme court decisions. i will try to find some examples.
Thank you wandeljw, that is very kind. I shall be very interested to read them.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion
Lawrence v Texas - there's that old dissenting team again
I do find it interesting to read those cases. I'm starting to get the hang of how they're presented, the style and method is slightly different than what I'm used to but it's very interesting. Thank you for the reference wandeljw.
Foxfyre wrote:I'm pretty sure it never occured to Hamilton that judges would be looking to European courts using European law as a basis for their own rulings. Some of us find that at least incongruous and judicial activism at best and wrong and dangerous at worst and strongly disapprove of the practice.
The Supreme Court routinely traces the history of a practice (or thing at issue) to understand the reasons for it as time progresses . . . and those reasons may or may not justify the continuance of the practice. This is not new or incongruous. After all, our country is relatively new. We don't have centuries upon centuries of history to draw from. If we want to understand why something is the way it is TODAY, we have to look at the past to discover its origins and development.
I don't know of any cases where the Supreme Court has based its rulings on anything other than the laws of THIS country. If you know of a case where the ruling was based on foreign law rather than our own laws and constitution, please cite it.
Well the constitution itself is based on English legal thinking. The English common law provides the basis for America jurisprudence. The US Supreme Court has used references to English law in some of its decisions and that seems to me to be quite sensible. I would imagine though that that tendency would be on the wane now. English courts are being overruled by the European Court of Human Rights, for example, and that is having an effect on English jurisprudence. I daresay in twenty years or so the English common law could have disappeared from its country of origin.
