Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[roamer_1]

Nope.  You still need the courts.  The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate.   Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees.  At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means.

All that until they abuse the law they are supposed to interpret - Impeachment belongs to Congress.

[Oceander]

All that until they abuse the law they are supposed to interpret - Impeachment belongs to Congress.

Of course.   But impeachment does not change the meaning of the law, it merely removes the judge who is successfully impeached.  It doesn't invalidate a single judgment, opinion, or order of that judge. 

[roamer_1]

Of course.   But impeachment does not change the meaning of the law, it merely removes the judge who is successfully impeached.  It doesn't invalidate a single judgment, opinion, or order of that judge.

Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.

As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.

[Cyber Liberty]

Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.

As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.

The jealously of the Congressional power stops at the edge of their desire to claim responsibility for their action.  They are more than happy to let the Courts take the heat for their inaction.

[roamer_1]

The jealously of the Congressional power stops at the edge of their desire to claim responsibility for their action.  They are more than happy to let the Courts take the heat for their inaction.

Like I said, barring a literalist, federalist inclined majority in Congress, and maybe even then, as I said upstream, a pipe dream.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nope.  You still need the courts.  The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate.   Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees.  At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means.

That is complete BS.

The Founders never gave this power to any court.  The courts serve the people, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact made on the altar of unelected officials.

There is just so much false representations out there and the power of a court.  It is not the end-all as so many ill-informed in civics think it is.

Congress and Executive do not have to resort to the court to understand what is in the Constitution.

[Oceander]

Right, but if the Congress, jealous of its duty and power, exercised its right of impeachment (read exorcism) with abandon, the courts would soon be coming up with far fewer wafting penumbras to bend the law to their liking. They do it because they can.

As far as precedence, you are correct - only legislation can remove if not overturn it - Again, the jurisdiction of a Congress jealous of it's duty and power.

Which is why impeachment is a difficult thing to accomplish.  The Founders did not want Congress routinely impeaching judges just because they didn't like a ruling or two.  And hence, why it is not a tool Congress can use to force the courts to be compliant lapdogs.

A Congress that routinely impeached judges would be a Congress that overstepped it's bounds.

[Oceander]

That is complete BS.

The Founders never gave this power to any court.  The courts serve the people, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact made on the altar of unelected officials.

There is just so much false representations out there and the power of a court.  It is not the end-all as so many ill-informed in civics think it is.

Congress and Executive do not have to resort to the court to understand what is in the Constitution.

It is an inevitable corollary to the fact that the judicial power is vested in the courts and of the way in which a common law system works.  Judicial review is inevitable. 

Congress enacts laws, it does not enforce them, so the only way to find out if Congress got it right about what the Constitution meant is for a law to be tested in court, and that court will only go along with Congress if it believes that Congress got it right.  Again, the courts are the ultimate arbiters for what the Constitution means in the only way that matters: what it means when it's enforced against someone who is an unwilling participant.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is an inevitable corollary to the fact that the judicial power is vested in the courts and of the way in which a common law system works.  Judicial review is inevitable. 

Congress enacts laws, it does not enforce them, so the only way to find out if Congress got it right about what the Constitution meant is for a law to be tested in court, and that court will only go along with Congress if it believes that Congress got it right.  Again, the courts are the ultimate arbiters for what the Constitution means in the only way that matters: what it means when it's enforced against someone who is an unwilling participant.

You have been schooled in too may law classes that support their own well-being.

You are giving way too much power to a court.  Nothing in the Constitution even begins to say that only a court can claim jurisdiction on the content of the Constitution.  That power is only ASSUMED, not given.

The way you are describing, Congress can only act if a court thinks the Constitution allows it.  BS.  Congress reads the Constitution and can decide what its own role is, without a court.  If Congress and Executive permits a court to decide what Congress or Executive can do, then all law-making is being ceded to the Judicial.

That is anarchy and rule by a mob of black robes.

[roamer_1]

Which is why impeachment is a difficult thing to accomplish.  The Founders did not want Congress routinely impeaching judges just because they didn't like a ruling or two.  And hence, why it is not a tool Congress can use to force the courts to be compliant lapdogs.

A Congress that routinely impeached judges would be a Congress that overstepped it's bounds.

When the courts render decisions out of thin air, in the volumes set forth in the past three decades, no, an activist Congress would not be overstepping it's bounds, be it by impeachment or legislation.

[Cyber Liberty]

All we have to do it let people sue each other to sort things out.  That way, lawyers can get rich on the fees.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

You completely misunderstand who "the people" are.

It is those elected by the citizens of this country - Congress and Executive  - that are representatives of the citizens.

Those in black robes are - you know, the unelected ones - definitely do not represent "the people".

[roamer_1]

You completely misunderstand who "the people" are.

It is those elected by the citizens of this country - Congress and Executive  - that are representatives of the citizens.

Those in black robes are - you know, the unelected ones - definitely do not represent "the people".

Precisely right - An out-of-control judiciary is within the jurisdiction of Congress... And the Executive can choose not to enforce...

[Bigun]

No, courts decide how the law applies to the facts of a particular case, and that means they determine what the law is.  Any member of the executive who refuses to carry out a lawful order of a court is himself breaking the law.

You being an officer of the court, I have no doubt that you believe that.  The fact that you do does not make it true however.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Precisely right - An out-of-control judiciary is within the jurisdiction of Congress... And the Executive can choose not to enforce...

Lawyers believe they and their profession are the end-all.  Not even close.  No court can enforce its orders, it must rely upon a compliant public or Congress or Executive.

[Hoodat]

@MOD3 - Hey, I found it!

This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake.   Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

The baker in question did offer to bake a cake for the customers in question.  He simply declined to make a type of cake that he does not offer. 
(The sexual preference of those two customers is unknown.  Only a bigot would make assumptions in this regard.) 

So your premise is completely without merit.  And if you can't even get the first premise right, what does that say for your argument?

Imagine for a moment that you owned a business where you made cuckoo clocks out of wood.  Someone comes into your shop and orders a cuckoo clock made out of dragon tree wood.  You flatly refuse, while offering to make the clock out of some other type of wood.  You may have refused because you are a member of an arbor conservation society and recognize dragon trees as being endangered.  Or you may have refused because you have an allergy to dragon tree wood.  Or perhaps you refused because you have a select set of woods that you work with, and limit your clock making to woods on that list.  It really doesn't matter why.  All that matters is that commerce is an exchange between buyer and seller, and if either side balks, there is no commerce.  The buyer cannot be compelled to buy.  And the seller cannot be compelled to sell.  It is an open exchange where both parties agree at a certain price.

Yet you are willing to discard the very heart and soul of commerce and replace it with the tyranny of your will.  This has become a habit with you.

[Cyber Liberty]

Business owners are rich, and therefore not virtuous.  /s