DUmmies called out by one of their heroes Thom Hartman

[txradioguy]

He's on FSTV which is in our DISH satellite channel array.  Low production values and boring, I have never been able to watch it for more than a minute.

On the AFN decoders in Germany now they have all of these different "Power Net" radio stations...including one for talk radio.  Hartmann comes on before Rush who has Ed Schultz followg him.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Congress Makes laws, so can not congress originate a law that would in essence nullify or void a USSC decision. Sounds like regulation to me.

Apples and oranges, really.  Congress can, and has, enacted laws to avoid or overrule the effects of Supreme Court decisions, but the new laws are of course still subject to Constitutional review themselves; not all Supreme Court cases, after all, are decided purely on the basis of fundamental Constitutionality, there are a few matters on which they have original jurisdiction and many more where their jurisdiction arises from diversity jurisdiction (matters in Federal court due to the differing State citizenships of the litigant parties), and other matters where the Constitutional issue got the case in front of them, but their decision either does not primarily rely upon that, or the matter is severable, or their decision does not preclude further legislation.

Congress does have a role in 'regulating' the Supreme Court, in the sense of appropriating money for its operation and 'Providing for inferior courts' such as the District and Circuit Courts, and special courts such as the Court of Claims and Bankruptcy Courts, which the Congressional Judiciary Committees periodically rearrange.  And of course there is the required 'Advice and Consent' of the Senate in Federal judicial appointments at all levels, just as there is for Executive Branch political appointments.

None of this is 'Regulation' in the sense the dweeb Hartmann thinks.  Neither Congress nor the Executive is superior to the Supreme Court, nor is either superior to the other.  Each branch has some role in the management or operation of the others, but none of them has actual authority over another branch.  Hartmann is an idiot.       

[wasp69]

Well I took 1 for the team and watched the entire video, on this issue I actually agree with a lot of what Thom says, I'm shocked.

Bally, you should be shocked because Thom is dead wrong on this one.  In the video, which I watched, he implores with the denizens of the DUmp to "read the Constitution" and goes on to cite cherry picked quotes as well as manage to screw up the intention of the Senate.

His assumption that the Supreme Court has no legal right to strike down unconstitutional law is BS.  He cites a part of Article III, Section II, Clause II (as it applied to Marbury v Madison) for his justification.  What he quotes is:

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.

Thom cherry-picked the hell out of this one to make his case and, if that was all it said, he would probably be right. 

However, the full quote of Article III, Section II, Clause II is as follows: 

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.

His assertion that Congress regulates the Supreme Court is bogus on it's face because if it did, the relevant clauses establishing a Supreme Court would have been contained in Article I.  What Thom conveniently forgot in his sermon to us lesser beings is Article III, Section I, which states the exact role of Congress in relation to the Judiciary: 

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Another very important thing to remember (which Thom left out) is Article III, Section II, Clause I which states the Judicial Power given to the Judiciary: 

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.

Chief Justice Marshall very correctly stated in Marbury v Madison that:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

In Thom's argument that the Congress holds supreme power without the balance of Executive consent and Judicial review is nothing more than his, and every other progtard leftist, bending and twisting to make it mean what they want it to mean.  If anything, his praise of the "Progressive Era" passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 (direct election of Senators) should have set off every alarm bell in your brain.  Leftists love "direct democracy", it's how they give themselves largess from the Treasury.

Bally, don't ever take what a leftist says at face value unless it's "read the Constitution".  By doing that, Thommy boy completely invalidated his entire premise and made himself look even more stupid than before.

[Zeus]

Apples and oranges, really.  Congress can, and has, enacted laws to avoid or overrule the effects of Supreme Court decisions, but the new laws are of course still subject to Constitutional review themselves; not all Supreme Court cases, after all, are decided purely on the basis of fundamental Constitutionality, there are a few matters on which they have original jurisdiction and many more where their jurisdiction arises from diversity jurisdiction (matters in Federal court due to the differing State citizenships of the litigant parties), and other matters where the Constitutional issue got the case in front of them, but their decision either does not primarily rely upon that, or the matter is severable, or their decision does not preclude further legislation.

Congress does have a role in 'regulating' the Supreme Court, in the sense of appropriating money for its operation and 'Providing for inferior courts' such as the District and Circuit Courts, and special courts such as the Court of Claims and Bankruptcy Courts, which the Congressional Judiciary Committees periodically rearrange.  And of course there is the required 'Advice and Consent' of the Senate in Federal judicial appointments at all levels, just as there is for Executive Branch political appointments.

None of this is 'Regulation' in the sense the dweeb Hartmann thinks.  Neither Congress nor the Executive is superior to the Supreme Court, nor is either superior to the other.  Each branch has some role in the management or operation of the others, but none of them has actual authority over another branch.  Hartmann is an idiot.        

I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments. The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.

[Rebel]

I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments.

We must be talking about two different guys here.

The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.

Thhhom insinuated that the USSC was regulated and controlled by the Legislative Branch. A DUmmie even said the justices ruling against it should be hauled before some judicial panel. Neither the DUmmies nor Thom Hartmann know what the hell they're talking about. As for making laws, and the onus being on the USSC, well of course. That's the line of responsibility. When bills are introduced and signed into law, the judicial system isn't involved yet.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments. The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.

Everyone's entitled to his own opinion.  Maybe I could make it clearer by telling you our form of government organization is like a very high-stakes game of rock-paper-scissors.

[wasp69]

I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments.

All the filthy little marxists do; it's what makes them such great con artists.

[Ballygrl]

A) The balance of power isn't in the constitution.

While not specifically stated as "balance of power", the very nature of how our Constitution is written and how our government is created, per the Constitution, is a "balance of power". We're a federalist system and a Constitutional Republic.

B) The Supreme Court is regulated by Congress.

I don't think he understands this concept, then again, he thinks there is no balance of power. If he understood the balance of power, he'd understand the point. Congress regulating the USSC is patently false and shows an ignorance on the part of Thhhom that's unparalleled. The ONLY way Congress can override the Supreme Court is by calling for a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that one.

Thanks!

[Ballygrl]

Bally, you should be shocked because Thom is dead wrong on this one.  In the video, which I watched, he implores with the denizens of the DUmp to "read the Constitution" and goes on to cite cherry picked quotes as well as manage to screw up the intention of the Senate.

His assumption that the Supreme Court has no legal right to strike down unconstitutional law is BS.  He cites a part of Article III, Section II, Clause II (as it applied to Marbury v Madison) for his justification.  What he quotes is:
 
Thom cherry-picked the hell out of this one to make his case and, if that was all it said, he would probably be right. 

However, the full quote of Article III, Section II, Clause II is as follows: 

His assertion that Congress regulates the Supreme Court is bogus on it's face because if it did, the relevant clauses establishing a Supreme Court would have been contained in Article I.  What Thom conveniently forgot in his sermon to us lesser beings is Article III, Section I, which states the exact role of Congress in relation to the Judiciary: 

Another very important thing to remember (which Thom left out) is Article III, Section II, Clause I which states the Judicial Power given to the Judiciary: 

Chief Justice Marshall very correctly stated in Marbury v Madison that:

In Thom's argument that the Congress holds supreme power without the balance of Executive consent and Judicial review is nothing more than his, and every other progtard leftist, bending and twisting to make it mean what they want it to mean.  If anything, his praise of the "Progressive Era" passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 (direct election of Senators) should have set off every alarm bell in your brain.  Leftists love "direct democracy", it's how they give themselves largess from the Treasury.

Bally, don't ever take what a leftist says at face value unless it's "read the Constitution".  By doing that, Thommy boy completely invalidated his entire premise and made himself look even more stupid than before.

Thanks for the clarification, and yes I should know better to ever listen to a leftist. I've read the Constitution, but being able to interpret it is a whole other story. I think what bothered me is the Court being able to over-ride Congress, and as an example, gun laws, what would happen if a leftist Supreme Court overturned a law in Congress that re-enforced the 2nd Amendment, what happens in that case then?

[DumbAss Tanker]

I think what bothered me is the Court being able to over-ride Congress, and as an example, gun laws, what would happen if a leftist Supreme Court overturned a law in Congress that re-enforced the 2nd Amendment, what happens in that case then?

In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen. 

The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine."  The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas. 

[thundley4]

In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen. 

The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine."  The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas. 

As in Roe v. Wade?

[Ballygrl]

In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen. 

The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine."  The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas. 

How do you keep the activists in check though?

[DumbAss Tanker]

As in Roe v. Wade?

Yeah.  Even then, the Court was so divided that there was no majority opinion, which is in part why the aftermath of the decision has been so murky as to what may or may not be allowed with respect to abortion.

The desegregation cases, on the other hand, while ultimately yielding a morally-correct outcome, got there by means of a lot of 'Extra-judicial' (To use a legal euphemism) reasoning and even some outright wrong characterizations of the legal history of the 14th Amendment.     

[TVDOC]

How do you keep the activists in check though?

By not electing presidents which will appoint them.......or senate majorities that will confirm them......

A tall order, admittedly.

However, in the distant past partisan/activist courts happened more by accident than by intent.  As a rule, Justices were appointed without regard to partisan positions (which was the founders intent), and there were a number that had little/no experience at all on the bench to determine their position on issues.  

Over the past few decades, Liberals have become more and insistant on a nominee meeting "tests" on issues that are a part of their agenda in order to gain confirmation.  Up until GWB, this phenomena was subtle......never outwardly stated......however during the Bush administration, prominent Democrats publicly stated (Schumer comes to mind), that nomination of a strictly "constitutionalist" justice would meet with united opposition from the Democrats in the Senate......which was not the founders intent.

Idealistically, presidents are charged with placement of the best constitutional jurist to SCOTUS, not the best from their ideological position......alas, times have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

What TVDOC said.

[Ballygrl]

By not electing presidents which will appoint them.......or senate majorities that will confirm them......

A tall order, admittedly.

However, in the distant past partisan/activist courts happened more by accident than by intent.  As a rule, Justices were appointed without regard to partisan positions (which was the founders intent), and there were a number that had little/no experience at all on the bench to determine their position on issues.  

Over the past few decades, Liberals have become more and insistant on a nominee meeting "tests" on issues that are a part of their agenda in order to gain confirmation.  Up until GWB, this phenomena was subtle......never outwardly stated......however during the Bush administration, prominent Democrats publicly stated (Schumer comes to mind), that nomination of a strictly "constitutionalist" justice would meet with united opposition from the Democrats in the Senate......which was not the founders intent.

Idealistically, presidents are charged with placement of the best constitutional jurist to SCOTUS, not the best from their ideological position......alas, times have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

doc

I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.

[Rebel]

I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.

With liberals, you get ignorant fools like this:

(CNSNews.com) - During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?

“Yes, of course they could,” said Breyer.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-can-congress-make-americans-buy-computers-cell-phones-burials-yes-course


Don't tell me you can send and idiot to school and get an educated citizen. No, you get an educated idiot.

[TVDOC]

I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.

True.......and we have reason for continued optimism regarding the composition of the Court......

1.  For the most part, the four conservative (constitutionalist) Justices are the youngest on the Court........remembering that they serve lifetime terms........

2.  The "swing vote", Kennedy, has stated publicly and emphatically that he will not retire until a Republican president is elected.........

Therefore the remaining eldest Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, are our maximum downside under a liberal president, which represents no real change in the ideological composition of the Court in the immediate future.  There is always the "wild card" that one of the critical members will get run over by a DC taxi, or fall critically ill.......but those are outliers.

Further, although admittedly rare, occasionally a Justice is appointed on the basis of ideological positions, and once on the Court, changes sides entirely (I believe that Breyer is an example of such a case)........it happens.

The appointment of judges shouldn't ever be a criteria for a citizen to cast a vote in an election.......regardless of the party in power, they should always be appointed based on their skills and legal intellect.......sadly now, this must be considered, and move to prominence in voters minds........

doc

[Rebel]

2.  The "swing vote", Kennedy, has stated publicly and emphatically that he will not retire until a Republican president is elected.........

Therefore the remaining eldest Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, are our maximum downside under a liberal president, which represents no real change in the ideological composition of the Court in the immediate future.  There is always the "wild card" that one of the critical members will get run over by a DC taxi, or fall critically ill.......but those are outliers.

Further, although admittedly rare, occasionally a Justice is appointed on the basis of ideological positions, and once on the Court, changes sides entirely (I believe that Breyer is an example of such a case)........it happens.

The appointment of judges shouldn't ever be a criteria for a citizen to cast a vote in an election.......regardless of the party in power, they should always be appointed based on their skills and legal intellect.......sadly now, this must be considered, and move to prominence in voters minds........

doc

That's what scares the hell out of me, Doc. This somehow gentlemen's agreement that a liberal judge must be replaced by a liberal judge. Works fine, until you get someone like Obama that will do the exact opposite and then we just have to pray no on dies. I'm not convinced Romney won't do just that. When we have a court with 4 justices that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, we have too many damn liberals on the court.

[TVDOC]

That's what scares the hell out of me, Doc. This somehow gentlemen's agreement that a liberal judge must be replaced by a liberal judge. Works fine, until you get someone like Obama that will do the exact opposite and then we just have to pray no on dies. I'm not convinced Romney won't do just that. When we have a court with 4 justices that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, we have too many damn liberals on the court.

Well......if you recall, GWB tried to do just that with a female appointee (I forget her name) who had really dubious constitutional credentials......and everyone raised holy hell about it, and continued that uproar until her nomination was withdrawn, so there are "checks and balances" with even presidents that waver.

As it turned out (if memory serves) that debacle resulted in Chief Justice Roberts being nominated and confirmed......

The best of all outcomes......

doc

[Ballygrl]

Well, then aside from voting Romney for President, we need to make sure we send Conservatives to the House and Senate to MAKE SURE Romney makes the right choice for the Court.

[Rebel]

Well, then aside from voting Romney for President, we need to make sure we send Conservatives to the House and Senate to MAKE SURE Romney makes the right choice for the Court.

Yes ma'am. 

[BlueStateSaint]

Well......if you recall, GWB tried to do just that with a female appointee (I forget her name) who had really dubious constitutional credentials......and everyone raised holy hell about it, and continued that uproar until her nomination was withdrawn, so there are "checks and balances" with even presidents that waver.

As it turned out (if memory serves) that debacle resulted in Chief Justice Roberts being nominated and confirmed......

The best of all outcomes......

doc

That was Harriet Myers.  Chief Roberts was nominated to be an Associate Justice, then when Chief Reinquist died, he was elevated to be the Chief Justice.  Samuel Alito was nominated to fill the Associate Justice's slot.  Two awesome nominations.

[thundley4]

That was Harriet Myers.  Chief Roberts was nominated to be an Associate Justice, then when Chief Reinquist died, he was elevated to be the Chief Justice.  Samuel Alito was nominated to fill the Associate Justice's slot.  Two awesome nominations.

When the DUmmies hate a USSC Justice, it is usually one of the black conservative ones.  Why is that?

[BlueStateSaint]

When the DUmmies hate a USSC Justice, it is usually one of the black conservative ones.  Why is that?

Can you imagine the firestorm if the woman below:



was nominated for the SCOTUS?