Kansas Olligarch Governor ends independent Judiciary

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Two words: Dred Scott.

What about it?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Two words: Dred Scott.

I think you missed the argument. To the extent the court is a political office, you don't need law training to be on the supreme court, your decisions are politicsl. Its not calling balls and strikes so it can't be correct or wrong.

 

[casebro]

There is a reason it's called "Supreme".

The State supreme court can rule on whter the debacle is within the state constitution. The only thing the higher feral courts can rule on afterwards is whether the state conny is within the Fed Conny.

But I suspect cutting the state courts for political reason is interference of the separation. Which the state court will decide. Any bets?

But does that state conny even have the qualification of separation?

 

[sunmaster14]

Tangent: I have been thinking of a post about separation of powers and a knee jerk assumption that it implies a more copacetic situation than actually exists. This argument that the legislature is limited in impeachment is part of that. If I put it up I would like you to post in it.

I would be happy to participate, since it's an interesting subject. In particular, I would like to discuss the power grab by the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison and whether that has led both the executive and legislative branches to abdicate their rights and obligations to decide what is constitutional or not. For example, I think any legislator who votes in favor of a bill he thinks is unconstitutional has violated his oath of office. The same is true for a President who signs a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional. Yet it happens quite often these days. The attitude seems to be, "Well, it's not for me to judge. That's SCOTUS's job."

 

[Fizil]

I would be happy to participate, since it's an interesting subject. In particular, I would like to discuss the power grab by the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison and whether that has led both the executive and legislative branches to abdicate their rights and obligations to decide what is constitutional or not. For example, I think any legislator who votes in favor of a bill he thinks is unconstitutional has violated his oath of office. The same is true for a President who signs a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional. Yet it happens quite often these days. The attitude seems to be, "Well, it's not for me to judge. That's SCOTUS's job."

Marbury v. Madison wasn't a power grab. Judicial review of laws had been in existence since around the 17th century. Even before Marbury v. Madison most people assumed the court had this power (even Anti-Federalists who objected to the power). Marbury v. Madison didn't establish judicial review, it merely showed the Supreme Court's willingness to use it.

 

[sunmaster14]

Marbury v. Madison wasn't a power grab. Judicial review of laws had been in existence since around the 17th century. Even before Marbury v. Madison most people assumed the court had this power (even Anti-Federalists who objected to the power). Marbury v. Madison didn't establish judicial review, it merely showed the Supreme Court's willingness to use it.

Well, it's a discussion for another thread, but the power of judicial review is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. There is exquisite irony in the idea that the judicial branch of government should have the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare powers exercised by the other branches to be unauthorized by the Constitution, when the power of judicial review is unauthorized by the Constitution.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This would seem inevitable: Group Begins Brownback Impeachment Petition

 

[Suddenly]

Well, it's a discussion for another thread, but the power of judicial review is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. There is exquisite irony in the idea that the judicial branch of government should have the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare powers exercised by the other branches to be unauthorized by the Constitution, when the power of judicial review is unauthorized by the Constitution.

The judicial power is mentioned. At its basic form that means interpreting what the law means in a specific circumstance. Judicial review is deciding what to do when some form of law, say a statute, seems to contradict what is written in the constitution. So a court naturally holds the constitution superior to the statute.

The only way you avoid judicial review is if you decide the constitution has no legal force in a court of law.

 

[Beerina]

**** Republicans.

How the hell is this even possible?

And, I love the fact that a Republican did this. All the while Republicans are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution.

I know. I haven't seen such an egregious abuse of a congress' power to technically control a court's operation since FDR cowed the Supreme Court into submission by threatening to increase the number beyond 9 to pack it. They agreed to his socialist agenda, changing the Constitution sans amendment.

************ Democrats. And ************* Republicans.

************ them all.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I'm highly critical of the present Court, but there has to be some allowances for people that just don't agree with you without crossing into this sort of despairing implications of illegitimacy . Rending one's garments at every conservative decision from a conservative court cheapens the outrage at something that is true garbage in any light, like Bush v. Gore.

We've had more than a decade now of this BS, and set for even more since the TEAOP controlled Senate has promised not to advance any new judge appointments as long as Obama is president.

The courts at the top levels (and most of the intermediate ones) are so heavily corporatist and oligarchy enabling that it is virtually impossible for the people to find justice therein.

Bush v Gore was just the first. Kelo, Citizens United, Shelby County, et al continue to chip away at the rights and protections of the citizen in name of empowering elite special interests and the olligarchy.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You should have posted these links in the first place. Why post a link to the Daily Kos on a skeptics forum?

Kos =/= invalid. And any article from ANY source should involve checking the citations.

By definition, a Supreme Court ruling can never be wrong.

BS! Fugitive Slave Act. "Separate but Equal". Both SCOTUS rulings. Both absolutely WRONG. I'd add Santa Clara (corporations have the rights of persons), Roe v Wade (permitting the murder of pre-born babies), Kelo (governments may use immanent domain to take property in the name of private development), Citizens United (destroying electoral participation equity between ordinary citizens and elites/businesses).

Arguing that whatever the Court has ruled is correct because the Court so ruled is the "circular argument" fallacy.

What about it?

It scares me more than I can adequately express that you would hold that Dred Scott was EVERa valid SCOTUS decision.

Well, it's a discussion for another thread, but the power of judicial review is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. There is exquisite irony in the idea that the judicial branch of government should have the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare powers exercised by the other branches to be unauthorized by the Constitution, when the power of judicial review is unauthorized by the Constitution.

Wrong. Article III Section II provides in part that:

"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."

Note especially the bolded part. ALL cases. By definition that includes challenges to the Constitutionality of the law.

Even were that not the case, judicial review by the courts, including SCOTUS, is an "implied power" under that doctrine. Otherwise it would be possible for the Congress to simply vote away the Constitutional rights of citizens and they would have nowhere to turn for redress.

And before you say "they can vote in a new Congress", what if the law passed was to rescind the franchise of citizens? Where would they turn then?

That's why we have separation of powers. That's why we NEED separation of powers.

 

[fuelair]

There is a reason it's called "Supreme".

The State supreme court can rule on whter the debacle is within the state constitution. The only thing the higher feral courts can rule on afterwards is whether the state conny is within the Fed Conny.

But I suspect cutting the state courts for political reason is interference of the separation. Which the state court will decide. Any bets?

But does that state conny even have the qualification of separation?

I very much would wish to avoid a feral court!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Kos =/= invalid.

If Kos <> invalid, then The Blaze <> invalid.

BS! Fugitive Slave Act. "Separate but Equal". Both SCOTUS rulings. Both absolutely WRONG. I'd add Santa Clara (corporations have the rights of persons), Roe v Wade (permitting the murder of pre-born babies), Kelo (governments may use immanent domain to take property in the name of private development), Citizens United (destroying electoral participation equity between ordinary citizens and elites/businesses).

Woooosh!!!!!

Arguing that whatever the Court has ruled is correct because the Court so ruled is the "circular argument" fallacy.

False.

It scares me more than I can adequately express that you would hold that Dred Scott was EVERa valid SCOTUS decision.

I'm sure you can find a copy of it in the National Archives. It really exists. People obeyed it and based further actions upon it. Ergo, it's a valid decision.

If was an "invalid" decision, Dred Scott would have immediately been set free. Why wasn't he?

 

[Trebuchet]

I very much would wish to avoid a feral court!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's the most awesome typo I've seen all week.

Having destroyed the state's economy, Brownback is of course thinking of running for President.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is getting so very little national news coverage. Is no one taking the guy seriously?

 

[tsig]

There is a reason it's called "Supreme".

The State supreme court can rule on whter the debacle is within the state constitution. The only thing the higher feral courts can rule on afterwards is whether the state conny is within the Fed Conny.

But I suspect cutting the state courts for political reason is interference of the separation. Which the state court will decide. Any bets?

But does that state conny even have the qualification of separation?

What do rabbits have to do with this?

 

[tsig]

But it's the most awesome typo I've seen all week.

Having destroyed the state's economy, Brownback is of course thinking of running for President.

Then he will be Brokeback.

 

[SezMe]

If Kos <> invalid, then The Blaze <> invalid.

Sometimes Kos=valid
Sometimes Kos=invalid

Sometimes Blaze=valid
Sometimes Blaze=invalid

HOWEVER

Frequency Kos=valid >>> frequency Blaze=valid

Should this be in the mathematics subforum?

 

[BenBurch]

I know. I haven't seen such an egregious abuse of a congress' power to technically control a court's operation since FDR cowed the Supreme Court into submission by threatening to increase the number beyond 9 to pack it. They agreed to his socialist agenda, changing the Constitution sans amendment.

************ Democrats. And ************* Republicans.

************ them all.

Amen. This is hideous.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

If Kos <> invalid, then The Blaze <> invalid.

I'll certainly consider what a Blaze article has to say...but I'm going to take a careful look at it's sources as well, just like I do with Kos.

Woooosh!!!!!

Doesn't even respond to anything I'm saying.

False.

In what way. How does a ruling legitimize itself? If a crooked judge rules in a biased manner, his rulings are de facto rendered illegitimate due to that bias (judges are supposed to be impartial and rule in accordance with law and justice).

Another example of invalid rulings your doctrine would legitimize: the so-called "kids for cash" juvenile justice scandal in PA in 2008. Juveniles were given extremely harsh (and often unwarranted entirely) sentences in a for-profit juvenile jail that paid two judges to do exactly that.

Documentary:

http://kidsforcashthemovie.com/

History of scandal, including source links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

I'm sure you can find a copy of it in the National Archives. It really exists. People obeyed it and based further actions upon it. Ergo, it's a valid decision.

If was an "invalid" decision, Dred Scott would have immediately been set free. Why wasn't he?

Because validity is not a function of existence. Validity is that is correct and proper in this context.

By your notion, the very concept of "miscarriage of justice" cannot exist, but we know that many unjust court rulings have been made at all levels of the law.