Jindal: SCOTUS Is 'Out of Control, Let's Just Get Rid of the Court'

[rangerrebew]

June 27, 2015


Jindal: SCOTUS Is 'Out of Control, Let's Just Get Rid of the Court'

Leah Barkoukis

6/26/2015 7:46:00 PM - Leah Barkoukis


 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal slammed the Supreme Court on Friday after its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.


“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” the 2016 presidential candidate said in a statement.

“If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court,” Jindal added.

The 5-4 ruling, which forces all states to recognize same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, will fundamentally transform the institution of marriage, he later said.

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he added.

Jindal also echoed Franklin Graham warning today that the persecution of Christians is coming with this ruling.

“Hillary Clinton and the Left will now mount an all-out assault on religious freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment,” he said.

“Regardless of your views on marriage, all freedom-loving people must pledge to respect our first amendment rights,” he added.

Chief Justice John Roberts was particularly concerned with the religious freedom aspect of the ruling as well.

“Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion, “and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.”


Christians “better be ready,” Graham warned.   

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2015/06/26/jindal-lets-just-get-rid-of-the-court-n2018094

[PzLdr]

You can't. Aside from the problem of amending the Constitution, the Court is needed for certain functions [U.S - foreign nations legal issues, legal issues between states, etc.].

What they can do is amend the Constitution to [a] limit the Court's powers, and provide for a means for the Legislature to overrule the court by a super majority.

I've always believed that the absolute worse Supreme Court decision was "MARBURY v. MADISON", where John Marshall created judicial review and the primacy of the USSC out of whole cloth.

[libertybele]

Getting rid of the Supreme Court?  How about starting impeachment proceedings against the judges?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Jindal: SCOTUS Is 'Out of Control, Let's Just Get Rid of the Court'

Better yet, how about we get a Congress that is ready, willing and able to keep the court in check ---  a Congress that remembers they are the branch of government with the power to speak for the people --- a Congress unafraid to neuter the court through their Constitutional responsibility to write and pass the laws we live by?   How about a Congress that acts as a co-equal partner in this government and surrenders to no one?   

[olde north church]

Actually, I think they can.  I don't remember much about it but it's something about the Constitution requires a Judiciary Branch but not much else.  No real enumerated powers compared to Congress or President.
There probably is a method for suspension of the Court as the same as removal of a sitting member of Congressional or Executive branch.

[jmyrlefuller]

That's right. Congress and the President could simply dissolve all the courts and replace them with a new system to their liking if they wanted to. The Constitution requires a court system but does not specify any particular system, if I recall right.

Of course, that's not likely, but it's legally and theoretically possible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's right. Congress and the President could simply dissolve all the courts and replace them with a new system to their liking if they wanted to. The Constitution requires a court system but does not specify any particular system, if I recall right.

Of course, that's not likely, but it's legally and theoretically possible.

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

The Constitution created the Supreme Court and no other branch has the power to change that.

This is a percect example of the irrational hysteria that's been going on for two days now.

This is the same SCOTUS that upheld religious freedom in Hobby Lobby and  many other cases.

Everyone needs to either step off the ledge or jump already.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually, I think they can.  I don't remember much about it but it's something about the Constitution requires a Judiciary Branch but not much else.  No real enumerated powers compared to Congress or President.
There probably is a method for suspension of the Court as the same as removal of a sitting member of Congressional or Executive branch.

GOOGLE is your friend.

I read the Constitution all the time.

[Bigun]

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

The Constitution created the Supreme Court and no other branch has the power to change that.

This is a percect example of the irrational hysteria that's been going on for two days now.

This is the same SCOTUS that upheld religious freedom in Hobby Lobby and  many other cases.

Everyone needs to either step off the ledge or jump already.

The Supreme court is the ONLY court actually required by the Constitution itself. ALL of the others exist only at the pleasure of the Federal legislature. When you bother to read that ENTIRE section you learn that the duties of that Supreme Court are clearly spelled out and there is no mention of "judicial review" what-so-ever!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Better yet, how about we get a Congress that is ready, willing and able to keep the court in check ---  a Congress that remembers they are the branch of government with the power to speak for the people --- a Congress unafraid to neuter the court through their Constitutional responsibility to write and pass the laws we live by?   How about a Congress that acts as a co-equal partner in this government and surrenders to no one?   

Congress wrote Obamacare and Roberts ruled that if they needed to change it, they have ample opportunity to do so, ad that it isn't for the Court to do that for them.

The law sucks because it was enacted by a wildly liberal Congress and President, but that's what we get when we elect a wildly liberal majority Congress and a Socialist as a President.

Congress can change that law at any time it wants to, but the changes won't pass because Obama will veto them, and they don't have enough votes to override his veto.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Supreme court is the ONLY court actually required by the Constitution itself. ALL of the others exist only at the pleasure of the Federal legislature. When you bother to read that ENTIRE section you learn that the duties of that Supreme Court are clearly spelled out and there is no mention of "judicial review" what-so-ever!

So you must be delighted with Chief Justice Roberts and the King v. Burwell ruling.

[Bigun]

So you must be delighted with Chief Justice Roberts and the King v. Burwell ruling.

Why on earth would you think that???

I don't see anything in Article I that says judges can write, re-write, or otherwise attempt to improve law!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Jindal has been disappointing so far.  I know very little about him or his record and I don't think I'll bother.

On the other hand anything that dilutes the right fringe adoration with Trump is good for me.   "Let's Just Get Rid of the Court" is a sound bite that will be very popular on Breitbart.com 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why on earth would you think that???

I don't see anything in Article I that says judges can write, re-write, or otherwise attempt to improve law!

The Roberts Court did none of those things. They left the law stand as written and as intended to be executed by the Legislature.

"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done." - King v Burwell, USC 14-114, Chief Justice John Roberts delivering the opinion of the Court

Roberts left whatever needed to be fixed on this law to the Legislature so that if Congress wanted to amend the law to cure this apparent error in the text, it can now do so — he saw no reason for the Court to step in and exercise that "judicial review" power that you so vehemently claim that the SCOTUS lacks. Had the Court exercised that fabled "judicial review" power and struck the law down it would have usurped from the Legislative Branch the power to write an explicit exclusion into the law, which the court would unquestionably honor should the issue ever come up again.

You cannot stand against judicial review then turn around and complain that the Court did not engage in judicial review simply because the outcome of the case isn't to your liking.

The decision was grounded in both conservative and textualist principles.

[jmyrlefuller]

The Roberts Court did none of those things. They left the law stand as written and as intended to be executed by the Legislature.

Roberts left whatever needed to be fixed on this law to the Legislature so that if Congress wanted to amend the law to cure this apparent error in the text, it can now do so — he saw no reason for the Court to step in and exercise that "judicial review" power that you so vehemently claim that the SCOTUS lacks. Had the Court exercised that fabled "judicial review" power and struck the law down it would have usurped from the Legislative Branch the power to write an explicit exclusion into the law, which the court would unquestionably honor should the issue ever come up again.

You cannot stand against judicial review then turn around and complain that the Court did not engage in judicial review simply because the outcome of the case isn't to your liking.

The decision was grounded in both conservative and textualist principles.

So "established by the states" means...?

[Luis Gonzalez]

So "established by the states" means...?

For one, it means that you have the text wrong.

The law textually reads "established by the State", not "states".

Irrespective of that, Bigun has argued that the Constitution did not grant the SCOTUS the power of judicial review, which means that the SCOTUS couldn't overturn the law.