Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court's McCutcheon decision and the 'appearance' of corruption (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think they can keep doing this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz, polecat, Musial

    I had a CON Law professor who I loved. Students like "black letter law".

    He spoke realistically. Most important lesson is FDR and the Slaughterhouse? Cases.

    1. Why do we listen to the SCOTUS. The truth is Marbury v. Madison made up Judicial review. They had no right to make the decision, actually didn't said a lot giving themselves power and were smart enough to say  . . . but we can't do that so it's moot.

    2. What's the Court done since? They have 12? Bailiffs. The POTUS has the Army. My Con Law proffessor seriously brought this up. Why would he listen. As long as they walk a straight line. We leave them be. When their agenda is outed see "the switch in time that saved the nine" . . . mid way through striking down all new deal reforms a Justice Roberts said "hm I am changing my mind about everything". Why? Because FDR said F U I am going to add justices so we can move forward. That's why there's still nin.

    3. Don't believe me. Imagine that Some religious type law gets passed saying that Jesus was white, so we should pay white people so they are a majority. Are we going to listen to them? Hell no.

    4. The Court is VERY VERY VERY careful. They know this. It's no secret. I honestly thought the ACA would be upheld because of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Because it was becoming transparent. Deciding a president and letting them decide future elections.

    5. These are real people. I strongly believe the ACA was (and said before) it would be upheld (don't check comments i might've to friends).

    6. But if they stray too far they have no power. Look at all the "orders" they gave to clean up mental institutions. They don't have a police force to implement all they have is a cherished place in American Folklore. They can lose it. They almost did 80 years ago.

    They can again. They can't keep going this way. They know it. Otherwise the ACA would've gone down. If that happened they now are a political body we don't listen to. At least campaign stuff, it's "bipartisan".

    Expect their next "big" issue to surprise. Or they are really fucking stupid. And we tune them out.

    •  Hand Weshcler Debate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz

      Whether the Judicial Review was made up
      a. Hand- beware social upheaval nothing gives the Court the right to do this in the Constitution, so since we made the power up we should exercise it sparingly. Do it when necessary.  The power is not logical from the structure cuz powers are separated.

      b. Weschler- as long as acting on a neutral principle it’s ok. Because he felt the principle is anchored in the constitution he felt you need to practice this power as an obligatory duty.

      •  Judicial Review Made up in Marbury (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian Reifowitz, Musial

        In 1800 the Federalists lost Congress and the presidency to Jerferson, they were left with the Federal Courts.

         Marbury- He was a Hack who got himself a nice judging job. Problem is, a becoming a judge you needed a commission to be signed, sealed and delivered. Adams signed and sealed it, but it wasn’t delieverd.

        Jefferson- Wouldn’t allow Marbury to sit, and wouldn’t follow an order telling him to make Marbury a judge.

        The case started as a summons and a motion saying show up here and then show why the claim should not be granted.

        Madison’s response- “no cause has been show”-he didn’t show up, they didn’t care what was going on because they weren’t going to do it no matter what the court said.

        You can site law from here until tomorrow, it doesn’t make the slightest difference if they choose not to obey.
        Weakening of Court, if legislators see this in the future it’s precidential for how they will act

        John Marshall’s problem? Not going to obey, what do you do?

         Marshall’s Strategy: Jurisdiction last
        a. First Question is: Does Marbury have a right to the order? (problematic because if the answer is yes you might have to make that order)
        Second Question: is there a remedy?
        Third question: Jurisdiction (this should’ve been first!!) Instead he inserted Judicial Review before as Dicta.

        It happens. They know. They made the right up and can go too far, they don't really have any actual power (if called out for transparency).

        •  Marbury was innocuous enough, Dred Scott is what (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          crashed the system. Gilded era Court picked up where Taney left off, imposing judicial supremacy over a corrupt Congress. Corruption has been the general rule. Judicial supremacy is not tolerated in serious democracies, according to Louis Boudin, "Government by Judiciary". Lincoln at Gettysburg, popular democracy didn't perish from the earth, but soon thereafter, US is no democracy and trying to kill it globally. The branches are no longer separated and powers extend to whatever can be gotten away with, as Prof. Ackerman noted, predicatbly a military disctatorship within the next 40 years. Fourth Amendment obsolete. now free speech obsolete. Exceptions in New Deal and Civil Rights movements show how voters should proceed through an anticorruption revolution, securing landmark legislation that forces the Court to switch in time or lose its imaginary jurisdiction to the exceptions clause. The amendment approach concedes defeat on the most important issue, the Court's invasion of a political question, separation of powers.

      •  Define neutral (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian Reifowitz

        Problem as I remember it is how to define "neutral"?  After all Justice Roberts insisted at his confirmation hearing that he valued precedent, judicial restraint, that judges were just "umpires".  

        •  I can't define Neutral (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ian Reifowitz

          We are talking about Learned Hand on one side and a Con Law Scholar on the other. Jstor has his review article.

          My guess is this is not what he envisioned as I believe their debate was front stage after the "excesses" of the Burger Court.

        •  And way was the instant replay invented? (0+ / 0-)

          Because refs can get corrupt. Countless football games were decided, not because of a better team, but because of a bad call from a corrupt ref. Same with basketball games.

          And legislation. That takes five corrupt refs per bad call.

          I'm variable race by having reverse engineered John Howard Griffin.

          by 99percenter on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:16:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  SCOTUS wanted to save street cred by upholding ACA (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Villanova Rhodes

      The 5 "conservatives" responsible for Citizens United v Feferal Elections Commission should be held on charges of treason. The Constitution holds that Treason is to be punished by Firing Squad.

      Here's my prescription for a firing squad death sentence. Each criminal is strapped in and 5 guns each are aimed so 2 are aimed at each eye and the fifth aimed at the forehead. The triggers are attached to solenoids.

      There are 5 people to press buttons, and an Arduino gets to pick at random which button to obey, then set off the solenoids. Then... POP!!! POP!!! POP!!! etc. Then the bodies are fed to pigs to recycle them, just to be "green".

      Personally, I'd rather sentence the traitors to Death by Re-Entry. Send them up to almost orbit and let them get on the hot seat as they de-orbit. OUCH! Or drown them in a cage like anyone would do to trapped rats. Note that a re-entry video would be awesome on Youtube. :) Scalia starting to burn up would be some must-watch TV...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site