Santorum really doesn't understand how the Supreme Court works

[Travis]

Rick Santorum was on the Rachael Maddow show recently talking up how he would take down the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage if he was president. That is somewhat astounding on its own. What was more interesting was how he clearly has no idea how our federal government works.

Santorum insisted that Congress could pass a law overturning the recent Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage. Which is nonsense. Maddow tried to explain this to him.

“If there is a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. The second syllable in that word means it gets decided in the judiciary. The Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional. So you could not now pass a law that said, ‘We’re banning same-sex marriage.'”

Santorum went to the "Nuh uh, can so" school of debate. “Congress can pass anything it wants to pass,” he countered.

She pointed out that it would immediately be null. He said that it could be appealed back to the Supreme Court who might rule differently this time around after seeing how much some people hated their previous ruling.

“No, you could not pass a law that could contradict the constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court,” Maddow said prompting Santorum to again ask why not at which point she offered that, “You could amend the Constitution.”

He, again, asked, "why?"

“Because they’re ruling on the constitutionality of that law,” she noted. Santorum tried to argue that their decision was made “on an unconstitutional basis,” Maddow countered, “They decide what’s constitutional.”

I assume at this point Santorum rebutted with a "Kevin Bacon was not in the film Tremors" argument and held his breath until everyone agreed.

Or maybe not. Maybe I missed it. Watch the full thing. http://on.msnbc.com/1IjQI9d

 

[hgc]

He a lawyer! He know!

 

[dudalb]

THere is an awful lot that Santorum does not understand......

 

[Ladewig]

Yikes!
His argument is frighteningly stupid.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yikes!
His argument is frighteningly stupid.

I think you misspelled "frothingly".

 

[Ladewig]

Deleted by user

 

[sunmaster14]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

As for Maddow's claim that the word "adjudicate" is semantically meaningful, well, that's just garbage.

 

[hgc]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

As for Maddow's claim that the word "adjudicate" is semantically meaningful, well, that's just garbage.

But it's only the Judiciary's judgment of constitutionality that counts.

Operationally, that holds by custom ... as in the the executive branch and the states have traditionally abided by the custom of giving credence to the Judiciary, which has no army to enforce its rulings. This is probably because they don't prefer anarchy.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

As for Maddow's claim that the word "adjudicate" is semantically meaningful, well, that's just garbage.

See Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First the right wing tires to re-write the history of the county claiming it's framed by the Christian religion, now they want to ignore the SCOTUS' role in balance of powers.

I guess if you're going to ignore reality, you might as well go all the way.

 

[Dr. Keith]

First the right wing tires to re-write the history of the county claiming it's framed by the Christian religion, now they want to ignore the SCOTUS' role in balance of powers.

I guess if you're going to ignore reality, you might as well go all the way.

Why go big when you can go REALLY BIG!

 

[DavidJames]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

wow, the dance moves needed to be an apologist for Santorum (or any Republican for that matter) are truly dazzling.

 

[dudalb]

Yikes!
His argument is frighteningly stupid.

So stupid and just wrong from a legal point of view I wonder how the hell Santorum passed the Bar Exam.

 

[dudalb]

But it's only the Judiciary's judgment of constitutionality that counts.

Operationally, that holds by custom ... as in the the executive branch and the states have traditionally abided by the custom of giving credence to the Judiciary, which has no army to enforce its rulings. This is probably because they don't prefer anarchy.

The people who make the kind of argument about "The Surpeme Court does not have final authority" inevitably are butthurt because the Court just made a decision they did not like.
Santorum made this dumb argument from the right, but in Salon a few months ago some idiot on the left argued the court should be abolished because it was "Undemocratic"/
Me,although like any human institution the court can make mistakes,the Court is absolutely necessary as a restraint on the other branches of Government.

 

[dudalb]

See Marbury v. Madison.

We all know that John Marshall was a radical,leftwing progressive pinko...

 

[fuelair]

I think you misspelled "frothingly".

Yes you went there!!!

 

[fuelair]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

As for Maddow's claim that the word "adjudicate" is semantically meaningful, well, that's just garbage.

Wrong - where did you take your Civics and Government course??? Sue them if you can if they sctually taught you that. AS noted above the only thing Congress could try -and should not if they do not want to see a lot of storm from the court (5 of them may be ********, but they are the final ******** for law. And let's see how well the tirds who want to overturn them on the discussed get with their attempt to do that amendment. It's really, honestly the only way they can.....)

 

[fuelair]

See Marbury v. Madison.

per that civics class I mentioned!!!!

 

[Ladewig]

So stupid and just wrong from a legal point of view I wonder how the hell Santorum passed the Bar Exam.

Sometimes people running for president say things they don't really believe because they are convinced it will help them get elected.

 

[Giordano]

Santorum is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. All of the branches of government have a right, in fact a duty, to judge the constitutionality of a law or action for themselves. Operationally, I suppose the Congress could impeach and remove from office each of the justices who voted "incorrectly," so Congress really does have supremacy.

As for Maddow's claim that the word "adjudicate" is semantically meaningful, well, that's just garbage.

True in the sense that no one can make you do anything; they can just make the alternative exceedingly unpleasant. For over 200 years the Constitution has been interpreted as vesting in the Supreme Court the right to ultimately decide the Constitutionality of a law. But it is true that they have no military to enforce that decision, only the desire of other components of the government and the people to not degenerate into anarchy. The president can conclude that the Supreme Court does not have that right, and if he could convince enough soldiers in the army to agree, he could ignore the Supreme Court. Just as he could claim that his reading of the Constitution allows him to override Congress and become benevolent dictator. If each arm of government can decide for itself, then way not? Ultimately it would all be determined by who had the best armed forces to back them up; we all know how that works in other countries that tried it.

Yes, a less violent move would be to impeach the Supreme Court justices who voted against one's pet law. Of course this would have worked well also if Congress was as careless and unconcerned about precedent and checks/balances as Santorum appears to advocate. Remind me what the definition of a conservative is, again?