For those who believe the Supreme Court regularly exceeds its authority

[phrodeau]

Subsididarity.

Oh, eyer's still here. Lovely.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It enabled lines to be drawn so that a party could maximize the stability of "their" guy in the Senate and made it basically impossible for the citizens of a State to recall, for example, Mitch McConnell. His seat is, and always will be safe.

And yet, McConnell's power was somehow insufficient to control the outcome of the last Republican primary for the other Kentucky Senate seat that sent Rand Paul to Washington.

I lived it, and I can assure you Rand Paul was NOT McConnell's boy. Not then, and certainly not now.

Also, having worked briefly in Kentucky politics in the days before McConnell was elected to the Senate, I can tell you that he does not take opponents lightly or extend them undue measures of compassion. He's hardly a monster, but I would not wish to cross him politically.

The point being, no one's power is monolithic. McConnell himself was a nobody once upon a time, and he won the seat of a Democrat in a Democratic state in the last weeks of an election he was unarguably losing. It was a seat everyone had every reason to assume was "safe" from a Republican's grasp. So why wasn't it?

Because no one's power is monolithic and voters have a way of affecting change at odd moments.

Your belief that here-to-fore disadvantaged citizens groups change the balance of power among other citizens groups and not in the aggregate vis-a-vis the government belies the accomplishment of people of color most notably.

I grew up in a world where black people had no political power nearly a century after slavery had ended and their full, equal rights had been allegedly "secured" by the 14th Amendment. Don't tell me they've achieved nothing in the aggregate.

Yes, swimming against the current is tough. Overcoming the inertial force of any substantial mass in motion is difficult. I simply subscribe to the belief that it is not impossible given the proper technique and compilation of sufficient resources.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Oh, eyer's still here. Lovely.

Nawww. He's somebody's alt, but he's too subtle. Eyer doesn't have that capability.

 

[Curmudgeonly]

Nawww. He's somebody's alt, but he's too subtle. Eyer doesn't have that capability.

I'm absolutely certain...Eyer has the ability...

Just because you have observed him in an environment where he tends tochoose not to use a deft hand...does not provide prima facie evidence of his range.

 

[Yardley]

And yet, McConnell's power was somehow insufficient to control the outcome of the last Republican primary for the other Kentucky Senate seat that sent Rand Paul to Washington.

I lived it, and I can assure you Rand Paul was NOT McConnell's boy. Not then, and certainly not now.

Also, having worked briefly in Kentucky politics in the days before McConnell was elected to the Senate, I can tell you that he does not take opponents lightly or extend them undue measures of compassion. He's hardly a monster, but I would not wish to cross him politically.

The point being, no one's power is monolithic. McConnell himself was a nobody once upon a time, and he won the seat of a Democrat in a Democratic state in the last weeks of an election he was unarguably losing. It was a seat everyone had every reason to assume was "safe" from a Republican's grasp. So why wasn't it?

Because no one's power is monolithic and voters have a way of affecting change at odd moments.

Your belief that here-to-fore disadvantaged citizens groups change the balance of power among other citizens groups and not in the aggregate vis-a-vis the government belies the accomplishment of people of color most notably.

I grew up in a world where black people had no political power nearly a century after slavery had ended and their full, equal rights had been allegedly "secured" by the 14th Amendment. Don't tell me they've achieved nothing in the aggregate.

Yes, swimming against the current is tough. Overcoming the inertial force of any substantial mass in motion is difficult. I simply subscribe to the belief that it is not impossible given the proper technique and compilation of sufficient resources.

In my rambling missive I wasn't clear, I think. Individual groups as you rightly note made huge strides and I think that is a good thing. What I am saying is add up all those groups forget that they have competing interests, and note that the aggregate of all voting citizens (now a larger number then ever) has less ability than ever to make meaningful course corrections at the ballot box.

When the people speak with a plurality, judges strike down (sometimes appropriately) when citizen lobbyists try to influence it is a joke, when actual reforms are passed, entrenched bureaucrats do as they please. Witness the EPA simply deleting emails in defiance of the law in order to avoid discovery.

Education of citizenry is not the answer either, in that even if my point of view on a lot of issues were actually understood, I am pretty certain that I am in the minority of opinion of the proper role of government. The voters have shown that they prefer a government that "takes care of them" regardless of what that actually costs. I do think that part of that is because of innumeracy and complete economic illiteracy, but I have no hope of the masses ever understanding what this behemoth costs them personally because the costs do not come in the form of an itemized receipt. There is always a greedy corporate "them" to explain to the masses why despite the government trying their best the corporations don't "pay enough" and "charge to much" without taking any responsibility for economic realities.

It won't change. The last Presidential election sealed that. Real unemployment as seen by the actual percentage of people working being at historic lows. Minor arguments about why that is were enough to convince the majority that more of the same was called for. Japan lost a decade of growth thinking that they could "prime the pump." The people will, from here on, vote for bread and circuses. More people believe that government meddling in monetary matters helps them then people that believe it hurts them. It hurts those with the least power the most. Banks borrowing at zero percent and loaning the money back to the government in the form of bonds costs the banks not at all and profits them. Diluting the value of a dollar by 80 billion a month is subtle, but devastating over time.

Again a lot convoluted, but to answer your question, I see no remedy. I see no out for the end game on the massive borrowing. Economists disagree on a lot of fine points but the over-riding principle that if an economic activity cannot be sustained indefinitely, it will come to an end is not in dispute. We passed the tipping point long ago, so without economic health, the Republic doesn't matter. It's just in need of some policing for the aftershock and that's mostly local.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Again a lot convoluted, but to answer your question, I see no remedy. I see no out for the end game on the massive borrowing. Economists disagree on a lot of fine points but the over-riding principle that if an economic activity cannot be sustained indefinitely, it will come to an end is not in dispute. We passed the tipping point long ago, so without economic health, the Republic doesn't matter. It's just in need of some policing for the aftershock and that's mostly local.

For whatever we disagree on, I will grant you this last point, and it is the one that scares me the most since, after all, it overrides everything else.

 

[Yardley]

For whatever we disagree on, I will grant you this last point, and it is the one that scares me the most since, after all, it overrides everything else.

Edited out the doom and gloom I started to write.

As far as Scotus and for that matter all federal courts they have the power they have decided they need to have and maintain that authority because no one is going to tell them they cannot, because there is no alternative.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Edited out the doom and gloom I started to write.

As far as Scotus and for that matter all federal courts they have the power they have decided they need to have and maintain that authority because no one is going to tell them they cannot, because there is no alternative.

But to return to the point of the OP, I fail to see how anyone can reasonably argue that the "power the federal courts have decided they need to have" is not DIRECTLY and STRONGLY IMPLIED by the language of Article III and is somehow therefore a Constitutionally abusive appropriation of authority.

Courts, most particularly in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, MUST rule on matters of LAW. Many time those matters of law involve procedural due process -- was evidence improperly admitted according to procedural rules? Other times the question is of substantive due process. Is the law itself in violation of the Constitution?

These cases invariably are brought TO the COURTS by PRIVATE LITIGANTS. Why do people believe this is a wholesale invention by the judiciary to usurp power against the other two branches of government?

If I'm on the Court, I get paid the same regardless of who has buttsex with whom. I'm appointed for LIFE. Unlike the spoils of electoral politics, there is no obvious purpose for my amassing power to secure the growth and sustenance of a constituency I DO NOT HAVE. Nothing about the JOB of JUDGING is facilitated by the consequences of the decisions I render from the bench.

There is simply no compelling motivation for me to misappropriate the very thing you are accusing me of stealing! Please don't tell me I get to join a high powered law firm after I retire. I'll likely be in my 80s. My rainmaking days of law practice were probably over when I came here. Besides, is there any easier gig than THIS?

So, again, what is the basis for this irrational LUST FOR POWER you say I have that gets me.......nothing?

 

[OjosMojo]

So, again, what is the basis for this irrational LUST FOR POWER you say I have that gets me.......nothing?

Excellent point - how much more POWER could anyone want when they already have about as much as anyone could ever dream of.

Kind of like a gazillionaire - how possibly could one ever be accused of LUSTING FOR MONEY when they already have more than anyone could ever possibly need.

About this rationality you seem to love to assign to yourself, and your obvious obsession with championing the supreme POWER of the Court:

Do Supreme Court Justices have to go to another judge for issuance of restraining orders, or do the 9 just have the Marshals keep an eye on you 24/7/365?

 

[Recidiva]

It's not cowardice, it's consent. We, as a society, consent to the rule of law. If everyone started shooting their neighbor, there's really nothing the government could do about it.

Likewise, each branch of government executes it's responsibilities through it's consent. The Supreme Court has no enforcement authority (or means) to implement its rulings. It relies on the Executive to do that. Likewise, if the Executive fails to do that, the Legislative branch can remove the executive.

In a constitutional crisis the ultimate authority lies with the military but things would have to be pretty bad for that option to be exercised.

There is a great amount of dissent to the rule of law, reasonable and unreasonable, inherent and learned.

Law aspires to something, something that is not inherent, but is enforced. If it were to be left to natural state, there would be no law.

The job of the government is exactly that, to find the means and the wherewithal to override individual consent, that's why it's so easily abused.

 

[Sean]

But Jesus!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hogan ignores Presidential neglect of SCOTUS decisions. Presidents routinely send SCOTUS middle finger salutes. Generally the 3 branches co-exist from cooperation rather than attention to legal details. DEAR JESUS, MAKE ME CHASTE AND PURE, BUT NOT TODAY.

If the same-sex decision costs the Democrats the 2016 election and adds conservatives to SCOTUS when Ginzburger dies she may become as infamous as the SCOTUS associate justice from Georgia who remained on the bench after secession came along. He's buried at Laurel Grove Cemetery at Savannah but you'd never know it.

I wonder if the Federal judge who jailed the Kentucky clerk wasn't counseled to kick back and let time change the clerk rather than fire up Christians for 2016. Plus the judge serves in the 6th Circuit that opposed same-sex marriage. Fanaticism could be bad for careers.

 

[phrodeau]

But Jesus!

Yeah, talk about a lust for power.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hogan ignores Presidential neglect of SCOTUS decisions. Presidents routinely send SCOTUS middle finger salutes. Generally the 3 branches co-exist from cooperation rather than attention to legal details. DEAR JESUS, MAKE ME CHASTE AND PURE, BUT NOT TODAY.

If the same-sex decision costs the Democrats the 2016 election and adds conservatives to SCOTUS when Ginzburger dies she may become as infamous as the SCOTUS associate justice from Georgia who remained on the bench after secession came along. He's buried at Laurel Grove Cemetery at Savannah but you'd never know it.

I wonder if the Federal judge who jailed the Kentucky clerk wasn't counseled to kick back and let time change the clerk rather than fire up Christians for 2016. Plus the judge serves in the 6th Circuit that opposed same-sex marriage. Fanaticism could be bad for careers.

I addressed Presidential non-compliance in the second sentence of my original post. Try paying the fuck attention.

Secondly, such non-compliance from POTUS is hardly routine. If it was you would not consistently restrict your evidence of the practice to Jackson and Lincoln. And for those Presidents who "cooperate" with judicial opinions from the federal courts, exactly how did you determine that such cooperation is merely gratuitous generosity rather than a respect for the law and recognition of its legitimate authority?

Don't think SCOTUS opinions are enforceable? Ask Ms. Davis if she still thinks that's true. Defy one long enough and see if you aren't eventually found to be in contempt of court. That "opinion" IS enforceable.

Dumbass.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I addressed Presidential non-compliance in the second sentence of my original post. Try paying the fuck attention.

Secondly, such non-compliance from POTUS is hardly routine. If it was you would not consistently restrict your evidence of the practice to Jackson and Lincoln. And for those Presidents who "cooperate" with judicial opinions from the federal courts, exactly how did you determine that such cooperation is merely gratuitous generosity rather than a respect for the law and recognition of its legitimate authority?

Don't think SCOTUS opinions are enforceable? Ask Ms. Davis if she still thinks that's true. Defy one long enough and see if you aren't eventually found to be in contempt of court. That "opinion" IS enforceable.

Dumbass.

And he let her out of jail. You don't get how its all political and unsettled every time the same issue comes up. Just today the State Department failed to release all the Clinton emails the judge ordered. Obama sent the judge a middle finger salute.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And he let her out of jail. You don't get how its all political and unsettled every time the same issue comes up. Just today the State Department failed to release all the Clinton emails the judge ordered. Obama sent the judge a middle finger salute.

Because the office of the County Clerk began issuing marriage licenses in accordance with the law. Davis was warned on her release not to interfere with this or she would be held in contempt again and she would quickly find herself right back in that cell.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because the office of the County Clerk began issuing marriage licenses in accordance with the law. Davis was warned on her release not to interfere with this or she would be held in contempt again and she would quickly find herself right back in that cell.

Well, gee, I guess that was a "political 'fraidy-cat'" court order rather than a legal one.

I'm also guessing that in JB's world a motion to "stay orders pending an appeal" goes down on the scorecard as outright defiance of specious judicial obiter dicta and/or a most courageous example of civil disobedience.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I addressed Presidential non-compliance in the second sentence of my original post. Try paying the fuck attention.

Secondly, such non-compliance from POTUS is hardly routine. If it was you would not consistently restrict your evidence of the practice to Jackson and Lincoln. And for those Presidents who "cooperate" with judicial opinions from the federal courts, exactly how did you determine that such cooperation is merely gratuitous generosity rather than a respect for the law and recognition of its legitimate authority?

Don't think SCOTUS opinions are enforceable? Ask Ms. Davis if she still thinks that's true. Defy one long enough and see if you aren't eventually found to be in contempt of court. That "opinion" IS enforceable.

Dumbass.

You're just begging him to tell you about his 14th great granpappy and how he was Magellan's navigator.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're just begging him to tell you about his 14th great granpappy and how he was Magellan's navigator.

Are you sure? Given the genes apparently running through that family I would have thus expected Magellan to have been lost at sea.

 

[OjosMojo]

How shall we respond to a lawless decision in which the Supreme Court by the barest of majorities usurps authority vested by the Constitution in the people and their elected representatives? By letting Abraham Lincoln be our guide. Faced with the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, Lincoln declared the ruling to be illegitimate and vowed that he would treat it as such. He squarely faced Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s claim to judicial supremacy and firmly rejected it. To accept it, he said, would be for the American people “to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Today we are faced with the same challenge. Like the Great Emancipator, we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation. We must, above all, tell the truth: Obergefell v. Hodges is an illegitimate decision. What Stanford Law School Dean John Ely said of Roe v. Wade applies with equal force to Obergefell: “It is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” What Justice Byron White said of Roe is also true of Obergefell: It is an act of “raw judicial power.” The lawlessness of these decisions is evident in the fact that they lack any foundation or warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution. The justices responsible for these rulings, whatever their good intentions, are substituting their own views of morality and sound public policy for those of the people and their elected representatives. They have set themselves up as superlegislators possessing a kind of plenary power to impose their judgments on the nation. What could be more unconstitutional—more anti-constitutional—than that?

The rule of law is not the rule of lawyers—even lawyers who are judges. Supreme Court justices are not infallible, nor are they immune from the all-too-human temptation to unlawfully seize power that has not been granted to them. Decisions such as Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell amply demonstrate that. In thinking about how to respond to Obergefell, we must bear in mind that it is not only the institution of marriage that is at stake here—it is also the principle of self-government. And so we must make clear to those candidates for high offices who are seeking our votes, that our willingness to support them depends on their willingness to stand, as Abraham Lincoln stood, for the Constitution, and therefore against judicial decisions—about marriage or anything else—that threaten to place us, to quote Jefferson, “under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University

After Obergefell: A First Things Symposium

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/after-obergefell-a-first-things-symposium

 

[OjosMojo]

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.

Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", 16 April 1963

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

 

[badbabysitter]

Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", 16 April 1963

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

what exactly is " just" and " moral" about denying someone the same rights you have?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", 16 April 1963

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

We have been down this road before, and I will once again expose and condemn your duplicitous ass for quoting Dr. King out of context. Here is the rest of that context which you never cease to omit:

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an UNJUST law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Contrary to your repeated implication, Martin Luther King NEVER suggested that an UNJUST law NULLIFIED the LAWFUL AUTHORITY of a court or its officers to ENFORCE that SAME LAW.

Stop being a lying weasel.

p.s. -- I guess that made Dr. King something of a statist, didn't it?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're just begging him to tell you about his 14th great granpappy and how he was Magellan's navigator.

I can go back to the pharaohs for all of mine, whereas you cant name 3 of your possible fathers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

what exactly is " just" and " moral" about denying someone the same rights you have?

Its the natural ecology for the criminal class.