The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

[Bigun]

The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

Several 2020 candidates are determined to mainstream the perverse idea of expanding the Supreme Court to achieve policy victories. Such court-packing defies the intent, function, and ideals of the American judiciary.

Americans have been told a lie about the constitutional balance of power. Despite activist assertions to the contrary, the Supreme Court is not a supreme constitutional council with the sole and final say on legal matters. We have accepted a larger than life picture of the judiciary, and it is slowly destroying individual liberty and the constitutional order laid down by the founders.

The Constitution outlines the role of the courts, but for some time they have been operating beyond their proper function. We must change how we see them, understand their appropriate role, and stop allowing the growth of power. Each new interpretation of plain text that widens the judiciary’s authority is a dangerous violation of the separation of powers. If executive overreach concerns you, judicial overreach doubly should.

To correct a few common misconceptions, the judiciary’s rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the only or even final arbiter on the Constitution. And the judiciary is not a truly co-equal branch of government...

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/22/supreme-court-not-final-say-constitution/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=7ead94c6f9-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-7ead94c6f9-83773485

[Bigun]

It's time you heard it from someone other than myself!

[rustynail]

A Federal Judge Is The Final Say On The Constitution and All Other Matters and Things.

[Sanguine]

A Federal Judge Is The Final Say On The Constitution and All Other Matters and Things.

You didn't read the article, did you?

The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. Conspicuously missing are Supreme Court decisions. While the court is known for deciding the constitutionality of laws, its decisions are not themselves laws. In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it.

The Supreme Court is just that, a court. It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.

[jmyrlefuller]

Then how do you stop them?

[Cyber Liberty]

You didn't read the article, did you?

The SCOTUS has arrogated itself that power, with their willing accomplices in the leftist legal community.  The article is long on theory and short on actions to stop the usurpation.

[austingirl]

Then how do you stop them?

Good question. While we ponder that, how do we stop unelected bureaucrats from exceeding their authority?

[Jazzhead]

Good question. While we ponder that, how do we stop unelected bureaucrats from exceeding their authority?

That's easy.   Unelected bureaucrats have their authority because Congress has delegated it to them.    Congress needs to take that authority back.   

As for the courts,  if not the courts, then who?    What is "plain text" is hardly plain in many situations, the 2A being a notorious example.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Then how do you stop them?

If 'them' means judicial, you ignore them.

They are the branch with the least enforcement power.

[mrclose]

A Federal Judge Is The Final Say On The Constitution and All Other Matters and Things.

UH .... NO!

@Bigun

Just sharing a simple explanation, in picture form of how our government was supposed to work.

Instead, it has become something else altogether!
(Also shown in picture form)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

excellent post @Bigun

I have long believed the Constitution can be interpreted by all branches, especially not just judicial.

The Founders who drew up the document had just fought a war against an abusive unelected authority and would hardly intended to give ultimate power to another unelected authority.

[Bigun]

UH .... NO!

@Bigun

Just sharing a simple explanation, in picture form of how our government was supposed to work.

Instead, it has become something else altogether!
(Also shown in picture form)

Thanks @mrclose !  That is as good a pictorial description of things as anyone is ever likely to find.

[Bigun]

excellent post @Bigun

I have long believed the Constitution can be interpreted by all branches, especially not just judicial.

The Founders who drew up the document had just fought a war against an abusive unelected authority and would hardly intended to give ultimate power to another unelected authority.

@IsailedawayfromFR it has long been my contention that every single member of congress, along with the president,  were intended to take the Constitution into account in everything they do.  Every vote they cast, every bill that gets signed, every damned thing they do. There is a reason why every single one of them is required by the Constitution to swear an oath to that effect every single time they are sworn into office.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@IsailedawayfromFR it has long been my contention that every single member of congress, along with the president,  were intended to take the Constitution into account in everything they do.  Every vote they cast, every bill that gets signed, every damned thing they do. There is a reason why every single one of them is required by the Constitution to swear an oath to that effect every single time they are sworn into office.

Yes but you know that liberals believe they are serving their own interpretation of the Constitution.

[Bigun]

Yes but you know that liberals believe they are serving their own interpretation of the Constitution.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure sorry but no!  They know damned well what they are doing and that is to undermine the foundations of this country in every way possible.   The Constitution is in their way and they would like nothing better than to do away with it entirely.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure sorry but no!  They know damned well what they are doing and that is to undermine the foundations of this country in every way possible.   The Constitution is in their way and they would like nothing better than to do away with it entirely.

But who stops them, if for example, they have the votes to do it?

I believe that Obama had the most unanimous defeats in the SCOTUS.

[Bigun]

But who stops them, if for example, they have the votes to do it?

I believe that Obama had the most unanimous defeats in the SCOTUS.

We do.  We stop putting them in places where they can do damage period. We have strayed very far from the path |the founders intended for us and getting back on that path is going to be painful and time-consuming but we must do it. 

None of that is to say that the courts have no role at all.  They do and should confine themselves to conducting their business within their proper boundaries.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

That's easy.   Unelected bureaucrats have their authority because Congress has delegated it to them.    Congress needs to take that authority back.   

As for the courts,  if not the courts, then who?    What is "plain text" is hardly plain in many situations, the 2A being a notorious example.

And that Roe V Wade law.  Who the heck passed that one?

[Sighlass]

Good Read @Bigun and appreciated the visuals @mrclose ... Articles like this are a pleasure to run across.

[kevindavis007]

If 'them' means judicial, you ignore them.

They are the branch with the least enforcement power.

Like a certain Governor from Arkansas did in the 50's cause he didn't like a certain ruling?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

From the article...

In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it.

That's true.  And if one of the parties before the Court is the government, then the decision of the Court binds the government.

The Supreme Court is just that, a court. It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.

That's true.  But consider the rules of precedent.  Lower court judges are bound to apply the law as interpreted by superior courts.  So, the net effect of a single decision by the Supreme Court is that every other court must follow it.  And that's how it gets applied to cases and controversies other than the specific one before the Supreme Court.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We do.  We stop putting them in places where they can do damage period. We have strayed very far from the path |the founders intended for us and getting back on that path is going to be painful and time-consuming but we must do it.

Yes, we have.  But that's not because of the principle of judicial review, which is perfectly appropriate under theories of originalism.   It is because those courts, and the other branches as well, have strayed from that understanding.

None of that is to say that the courts have no role at all.  They do and should confine themselves to conducting their business within their proper boundaries.

But what is business within their proper boundaries?  Are you saying that Courts should not have the power to adjudicate cases involving the other branches of government?

[sneakypete]

Yes but you know that liberals believe they are serving their own interpretation of the Constitution.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

WHY do you people insist on continuing to support the fascist left by calling them "liberals"? They are the LEAST "liberal" people in the country,and all you do when you identify them as being liberals is to help their cause.

[Sanguine]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

WHY do you people insist on continuing to support the fascist left by calling them "liberals"? They are the LEAST "liberal" people in the country,and all you do when you identify them as being liberals is to help their cause.

Pete is correct.  I post on several "neutral" sites (yeah, right  ) and if I use the word "leftist" instead of "liberal" my posts get reported and pulled.  They are very aware of what they are doing.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But what is business within their proper boundaries?  Are you saying that Courts should not have the power to adjudicate cases involving the other branches of government?

To answer your own question, here's an example of a recent case I would ask you comment on as to being within or without the court's boundaries. @Maj. Bill Martin

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,355365.msg1942959.html#msg1942959