Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch calls Trump's tweets 'disheartening'

[r9etb]

I don't like the court usurping powers never granted them in the constitution!  THAT'S what I don't like!

What powers, exactly, did the court usurp in Marbury vs. Madison?

[Bigun]

What powers, exactly, did the court usurp in Marbury vs. Madison?

Judicial review.  And they have NO powers of enforcement other than those granted by legislative act which can be revoked at any time!

[Sanguine]

Agreed.  Which is why I don't have much sympathy for the position Trump's travel ban is now in.   The pattern of this new administration is to pick unnecessary fights and make unneeded enemies.

Now, I would think you would empathize with that.

[r9etb]

Judicial review.  And they have NO powers of enforcement other than those granted by legislative act which can be revoked at any time!

Well now.

Article 3 defines the Judicial Power as follows:

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.

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.

Perhaps you can suggest a way for the courts to discharge their Constitutionally defined duties without some form of judicial review?

[Bigun]

Well now.

Article 3 defines the Judicial Power as follows:

Perhaps you can suggest a way for the courts to discharge their Constitutionally defined duties without some form of judicial review?

How about they just decide the cases that come before them on the basis of the law as it exists!  That might work!

[r9etb]

How about they just decide the cases that come before them on the basis of the law as it exists!  That might work!

Just for fun, suppose Congress passed, and the president signed, a law that places Congress in a role subservient to the President's decrees.

Explain to me how a court should rule on such a law, without using the principle of judicial review.

[Bigun]

Just for fun, suppose Congress passed, and the president signed, a law that places Congress in a role subservient to the President's decrees.

Explain to me how a court should rule on such a law, without using the principle of judicial review.

NOW you are REALLY reaching aren't you?   That would be tantamount to amending the constitution and the states would NEVER stand for it!

There is a REASON why ALL members of the fed gov are required by oath to bear allegiance to the Constitution. Not just the courts!

BTW: I will respond to no more strawmen so save yourself the trouble.

[r9etb]

NOW you are REALLY reaching aren't you?   That would be tantamount to amending the constitution and the states would NEVER stand for it!

There is a REASON why ALL members of the fed gov are required by oath to bear allegiance to the Constitution. Not just the courts!

And of course you punted.  Because you know that any court would and should find such a law to be.... unconstitutional.

Because judicial review.

Just because it's been misused, doesn't mean the principle of judicial review is wrong.  It's basically implied by, The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.

It's a pretty fundamental tenet of American governance that Congress is not allowed to pass laws, nor the president to act, in contradiction to the Constitution.  The courts are the natural -- and Constitutional -- place to adjudicate such issues.

Your alternative seems to be a principle of "states review."  Where would that be found in the Constitution?

[Bigun]

And of course you punted.  Because you know that any court would and should find such a law to be.... unconstitutional.

Because judicial review.

Just because it's been misused, doesn't mean the principle of judicial review is wrong.  It's basically implied by, The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.

 It's a pretty fundamental tenet of American governance that Congress is not allowed to pass laws, nor the president to act, in contradiction to the Constitution.  The courts are the natural -- and Constitutional -- place to decide such issues.

Your alternative seems to be a principle of "states review."  Where would that be found in the Constitution?

So you don't think the founders knew how to use the English language effectively?  Why would they need to resort to implying something they could simply have stated directly?

Perhaps you need to read the Federalist papers and learn just what those men thought of granting power to magistrates!

[r9etb]

So you don't think the founders knew how to use the English language effectively?  Why would they need to resort to implying something they could simply have stated directly?

Perhaps you need to read the Federalist papers and learn just what those men thought of granting power to magistrates!

Are you suggesting that the Courts have no power to rule on whether or not a law falls within the bounds of the Constitution?

[Bigun]

Are you suggesting that the Courts have no power to rule on whether or not a law falls within the bounds of the Constitution?

None except that which they have chosen to grant themselves!

[r9etb]

None except that which they have chosen to grant themselves!

And so if a controversy comes before the court concerning a law that is manifestly outside what the Constitution allows, you're suggesting that the court is required to remain silent on that fact?

I'd be very interested to know how you would propose to deal with laws that are not permitted according to the Constitution.

Please be precise as to methods used, and bodies designated to carry them out.

[Bigun]

And so if a controversy comes before the court concerning a law that is manifestly outside what the Constitution allows, you're suggesting that the court is required to remain silent on that fact?

Nope! They are entitled to render their opinions!

I'd be very interested to know how you would propose to deal with laws that are not permitted according to the Constitution.

Please be precise as to methods used, and bodies designated to carry them out.

I would first require that the constitutional basis for any law be clearly stated in the law.  Second I would hope that those who write the law would take their oaths into account when deciding to vote for or against a proposed law.  Thirdly, I would hope that the president would take his oath into account when deciding whether or not to sign a proposed law. and fourthly, and probably most importantly, I would hope that each citizen would take into account whether or not a law is constitutional when called to service in the courts as jurors! But that's just me!

I have no objection to you trying to amend the constitution and grant the courts the power of judicial review if you wish.
 

[r9etb]

I would first require that the constitutional basis for any law be clearly stated in the law.

And who gets to say whether or not the claim is valid?

Second I would hope that those who write the law would take their oaths into account when deciding to vote for or against a proposed law.  Thirdly, I would hope that the president would take his oath into account when deciding whether or not to sign a proposed law. and fourthly, and probably most importantly, I would hope that each citizen would take into account whether or not a law is constitutional when called to service in the courts as jurors! But that's just me!

Last I checked, "Hope" is not in the Constitution, nor is it an effective basis for a system of government.

So basically, you're still avoiding the question.  Which of course you must, because the principles underlying the idea of judicial review are both reasonable and sound.

Unlike the very careful and precise definitions of the powers of Congress and the President, the Constitution itself doesn't really say precisely what are the powers of the Judiciary. 

You might consider reading Marbury vs. Madison to understand what they ruled and why.
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19&page=transcript

[Bigun]

I'm tired of arguing  with  people who simply ignore facts and rely on sophistry to make their case.  I'm done.

[r9etb]

I'm tired of arguing  with  people who simply ignore facts and rely on sophistry to make their case.  I'm done.

You were done before you even started. 

[txradioguy]

"A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void." ~ James Madison at the Constitutional Convention.

[Emjay]

Well if this is the way this dude feels about it, he can certainly pull his name from nomination, otherwise he can sit the hell down and shut up.

Do we know that he actually said this?  I find it strange and kinda unbelievable.  I liked him a lot and thought he was a great pick.

I think we need more information.  I'm not ready to throw him under the bus yet but I'm warming up my throwing arm.

[Emjay]

Did you see the presser where Trump introduced Gorsuch?    Trump shook his hand and attempted to draw Gorsuch close to him in a gesture of familiarity.  Gorsuch remained stiff-armed and kept his distance.

Gorsuch is the real deal - a tough, independent jurist who is not about to be seen as under the thumb of an oily manipulator like Trump.   Damn right he'll make a hell of a judge, of the very best sort - courageous and untouchable.

I saw the presser and didn't see what you saw.  I saw a dignified man... I didn't see a stiff arm at all but not everyone likes guy hugs.

[Emjay]

Yeah, we only want judges who will do the bidding of the president!  That's right!

C'mon, Frank.  You're not that dumb.

It's not a matter of doing anybody's bidding.  It's a matter of not criticizing the president to a democrat or anybody else.

We have plenty of press and liberals to do that. 

[Emjay]

Nah. This a check next to the box, "Possesses functioning spine?"

This as good.

Gotta stay out of Chicken Little mode, people.

This has nothing to do with a functioning spine.  This has to do with unnecessary criticism of a current president who has given you a high honor.

This has to do with stupidly shooting your mouth of to a democrat traitor.

That being said, I'm still not sure that he said it.  People do lie when it's in their interest to do so.

We'll have to see how this plays out.  He still has 20 other candidates.

[Emjay]

Gotta take of the Rose colored glasses don.

Seriously.

I don't get some of you people.

I wish Trump wouldn't tweet, but we knew he would.

What mistakes has he made?  He's made excellent cabinet nominations.  He's making strides to help business recover in America and create jobs.  He's pro-army and pro-police and he wants to keep us safe.

Why don't you people figure out what Hillary would have done in her first three weeks and cut Trump a small break?

[EC]

Why don't you people figure out what Hillary would have done in her first three weeks and cut Trump a small break?

With respect (and I do mean that!):

What someone else might have done has no bearing on what is actually being done by a completely different person.

When Trump does something good, I applaud it. I mean actual good, not the metaphorical equivalent of not crapping his pants in public. He's a 70 year old man - it's expected he doesn't crap himself in public.

When he does something stupid, boneheaded, or unconstitutional, I call him on it. Irrespective of what Clinton would have done or what the Worm did. They don't matter. They are not in the hot seat, Trump is.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't get some of you people.

I wish Trump wouldn't tweet, but we knew he would.

What mistakes has he made?  He's made excellent cabinet nominations.  He's making strides to help business recover in America and create jobs.  He's pro-army and pro-police and he wants to keep us safe.

Why don't you people figure out what Hillary would have done in her first three weeks and cut Trump a small break?

My difference with Trump are almost 100% style. But it does make a difference and it shows what poor character he has.

[ABX]