DUmmies Discuss Neutralizing The Supreme Court

[GOBUCKS]

DUmmy LuvNewcastle has an idea that's worthy of poor, stupid Beth in its brilliance, for how the muslim can get around the Supreme Court:

LuvNewcastle (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-14-11 01:08 AM
Original message
Can the President have a Supreme Court Justice arrested?
I've been thinking about the situation regarding our debt ceiling and I've been wondering if this controversy could set off a Constitutional crisis. Tension is building between the Congress and the President, and the courts might be called upon to mediate in a dispute. It could be very beneficial for the President if one of the conservative SC Justices were to be removed. We all know about Justice Thomas's issues with the IRS, and I'm curious about whether the Justice Department could have Thomas arrested for tax evasion and have him detained. I certainly don't want events to spiral that far out of control, but I believe this kind of hypothetical situation should be considered What do you know?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1486828
He needs to explore a little further this idea of the Supreme Court's rold in mediating a dispute between the Congress and the jug-eared muslim.
This could be a breakthrough in legislative negotiations.
It only makes sense, and it's a natural extension of the earlier DUmp suggestion that the Kenyan fire and replace the Speaker of the House.

dkf  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-14-11 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Isn't there some sort of protection the other branches claim?
Didn't Jefferson try to pull that?

I think it might be that Constitution thingy.

LuvNewcastle (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-14-11 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I guess it would be hard to have such
a high-placed figure arrested. And we can forget about Thomas resigning out of embarrassment. The man is shameless.

MADem (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-14-11 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. ???
The President isn't the Justice Department--he's the Chief Executive. Justice acts independently of him, they do not take orders from him, and they can't arrest people because he wants it to happen (see Nixon and the whole "Impeach the Cox Sacker" business to get some flavor on that; see Clinton and Reno to get a sense of a President not being able to tell Justice what to do).

Congress makes law. The President either signs or vetoes it. Congress can override a veto.

Someone would have to petition the Supremes if they felt a law was unconstitutional. Raising the debt ceiling, or engaging in taxation, or cutting the budget, are all things that have been done before, so the Supremes are unlikely to even agree to hear the case.

Any tax issues a citizen has are between them and the Department of the Treasury; Treasury (IRS) has to initiate action -- not the President or even the Justice Department.

LuvNewcastle (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-14-11 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I get a little confused about who the Justice Dept.
is answerable to. I know that the Attorney General is appointed by the Pres. and confirmed by Congress. Is the AG a member of the Cabinet? It seems like the AG serves at the pleasure of the Pres.

Also, I suppose that Treasury would have to file a complaint, but wouldn't Justice have to issue a warrant for an arrest? The Secret Service works for Treas., so I suppose they could carry out a warrant.

Please bear with me. It's been 20 years since I took an American government class.

Hey, don't worry about it, DUmbass. The jug-eared Kenyan is a self-described constitutional scholar, and look what a mess he's made.

[DefiantSix]

MADem (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-14-11 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. ???
The President isn't the Justice Department--he's the Chief Executive. Justice acts independently of him, they do not take orders from him, and they can't arrest people because he wants it to happen (see Nixon and the whole "Impeach the Cox Sacker" business to get some flavor on that; see Clinton and Reno to get a sense of a President not being able to tell Justice what to do).

Congress makes law. The President either signs or vetoes it. Congress can override a veto.

Someone would have to petition the Supremes if they felt a law was unconstitutional. Raising the debt ceiling, or engaging in taxation, or cutting the budget, are all things that have been done before, so the Supremes are unlikely to even agree to hear the case.

Any tax issues a citizen has are between them and the Department of the Treasury; Treasury (IRS) has to initiate action -- not the President or even the Justice Department.

Excuse me?  How do you remember to breathe, being as irredeemably stupid as you are?

The "Justice" department, the Treasury department; they're both DEPARTMENTS of the Executive Branch.  They answer to one man, ultimately; the asshole with his feet up on the HMS Resolute desk, more often than not.  Their department heads are there to implement The Magic Negro's policies, and serve solely at his pleasure.  If he doesn't like a direction they're taking, they can shape up, or he can ship them out.  No notice; just "buh-bye".

[franksolich]

Man, it makes the blood run cold, that two ignoramuses--the Newcastle primitive and the mad primitive--can vote, given their abysmal ignorance.

[Karin]

And yet they consider themselves brilliant political strategists.  They'd all fail a fifth grade civics class, assuming they teach that anymore.  Oh that's right, they don't.  It's all self-esteem and gay awareness. 

[docstew]

Man, it makes the blood run cold, that two ignoramuses--the Newcastle primitive and the mad primitive--can vote, given their abysmal ignorance.

I assume that a law requiring passing a civics test to vote would fail Constitutional muster... Anyone else think we need an amendment?

[Rebel]

I assume that a law requiring passing a civics test to vote would fail Constitutional muster... Anyone else think we need an amendment?

It would pass for a federal election. There is no right to vote in a federal election.

[Ralph Wiggum]

We all know about Justice Thomas's issues with the IRS, and I'm curious about whether the Justice Department could have Thomas arrested for tax evasion and have him detained.

I'm assuming this is that bullshit they've been talking about for months that is a hot scoop on RawStory/Firedoglake/TalkingPointsMemo/Olbermann.

Yeah, that's a reason to arrest Justice Thomas.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Arrest Thomas over some made-up BS?  Oh, and are you going to put him in the same cell with Rangel and Geithner?

 

[GOBUCKS]

I'm assuming this is that bullshit they've been talking about for months that is a hot scoop on RawStory/Firedoglake/TalkingPointsMemo/Olbermann.

That reminds me of PMSNBC. Yesterday afternoon at the gym one of the bank of widescreens was on PMS. I was listening to Metallica, so didn't get any of the audio, but it was the Chris Mathews show. At one point, the screen was filled with a closeup of Mitch McConnell (not a pleasant sight) and a big banner slid across the screen with "PONTIUS PILATE" in oversize capital letters. A few seconds later the screen was filled with a flattering closeup of the jug-eared Kenyan. A similar banner appeared, with "THE $86 MILLION MAN", followed by another banner saying "HE'S SO MONEY!!". I have no idea what Mathews may have been screaming at the time, but I'm sure it was fair and balanced.

[Freeper]

I have a better idea DUmmies, once upon a time a certain president was having trouble getting the things he wanted. He came up with a bright idea, why don't we simply add 3 more seats to the SC, that he could appoint, and that way the SC could theoretically vote his way, with the addition of 3 new justices. I know you DUmmies are probably thinking only a dictator like Bush would have come up with such a plan, or it must have been Nixon, or Reagan, it had to be a repuke, right? Well turns out it was one of your heroes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (FDR for those in Rio Linda).

[thelaughingman]

And we're the ones who are supposed to hate America and the Constitution.  ****ing Buddha on a flagpole.

[Chris_]

LuvNewcastle (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-14-11 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I guess it would be hard to have such
a high-placed figure arrested. And we can forget about Thomas resigning out of embarrassment. The man is shameless.

Racist.