Cain: I'll Overturn Supreme Court If They Strike DOMA Down

[Magyar]

Not exactly. Congress can re-enact the overturned law with different wording that avoids the court's ruling, or it can pass a "standard of review" statute that directs the courts on the criteria to use in deciding cases. That statute would then require the president's signature.

YEs, you're right but it still does not explain the utter ignorance displayed by this puts.

Because EVEN if your scenario takes place it would NOT BE Cain or any other president who over turned the ruling but Congress!

 

[shemp]

A president can also threaten to dilute the Supreme Court with a wash of new Supreme Court justices. Roosevelt did something similar to get many of his laws through.

Actually, his attempt failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

 

[Puppycow]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2003

What are they talking about? Anyone see this? Did he really claim he would "overturn" a supreme court ruling, and if so, what does he possibly mean by this?

I suppose that there is a way for the president to "overturn" the Supreme Court.

But only with the advice and consent of the Senate, and only one justice at a time when they retire or die. And most presidents won't be president for long enough to replace more than a few of them.

However, replacing just one liberal with a conservative might be all it takes with this court. So if, say, DOMA is overturned on a 5-4 decision and Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't retire while Obama is president and a Republican is elected, and then she dies, the SC could be effectively "overruled" by the next Republican president.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Cain would never attempt to add more justices to the Supreme Court, there are already his favorite number.

 

[Random]

Cain would never attempt to add more justices to the Supreme Court, there are already his favorite number.

He might try to add nine hundred and ninety of them...

 

[Spindrift]

Article III of the Constitution also allows Congress to declare certain topics "off limits" for SCOTUS review.

Really? Where exactly does it say that?

 

[Gazpacho]

In Article III. Read it, it's not that long.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congress can re-enact the overturned law with different wording that avoids the court's ruling,

Not in most cases. In most cases, it's not about some "magic words" but about the concepts. If the SCOTUS struck down the DOMA based, for example, on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, I doubt there could be any re-wording that would achieve the same end that would not also be struck down.

ETA: At any rate, Cain's not running for a seat in Congress.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did he really claim he would "overturn" a supreme court ruling, and if so, what does he possibly mean by this?

I suppose he wanted to compete with Bachmann's promise of $2/gallon gasoline.

I'd take it as a position statement and not a statement about trying to claim more authority than the president has. When Obama campaigned, he made pledges about budget and tax issues, but he really only has the authority to sign or veto what Congress passes.

The more important question is not exactly how he would achieve this, but that it is the position he holds.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In Article III. Read it, it's not that long.

Judicial stripping wouldn't necessarily be available to DOMA in two situations: if the case in question fell under the SCOTUS' original jurisdiction* or if the case was already going (since the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, Congess could not pass a statute that would strip the judiciary of the authority to review DOMA after a case is already under review by the judiciary).

*ETA: For example, if a lawsuit challenging DOMA were filed by one (or more) of the states that have legalized gay marriage, such a case would be in the SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, and Congress would have no authority to limit judicial review.

 

[Spindrift]

In Article III. Read it, it's not that long.

I read it. Has it ever been done?

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I read it. Has it ever been done?

I recall there being some talk about keeping the courts from hearing cases about Guantanamo detainees. Don't know if that actually ever happened though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I recall there being some talk about keeping the courts from hearing cases about Guantanamo detainees. Don't know if that actually ever happened though.

They tried, but Boumedienne v. Bush was decided by the Supreme Court.

But, yes, Congress has exercised its authority to pass judicial stripping statutes.

Here are a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping#Further_federal_statutes

ETA: And again, see my point about ex post facto laws and original jurisdiction. Even if Congress has the authority to pass a judicial stripping statue preventing the SCOTUS from having appellate authority (in cases where the SCOTUS lacks original jurisdiction--so if it's a suit filed by a state or states, there is no possibility of such a statute), you can't do it after the fact, so I don't think it's possible to use statues like this to reverse or overturn a SCOTUS decision.

ETA: But again, I don't think it's fair to take Cain's comments as gross misunderstanding of the separation of powers as much as it is to take it as a position statement. He thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. That should be outrageous enough.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They tried, but Boumedienne v. Bush was decided by the Supreme Court.

But, yes, Congress has exercised its authority to pass judicial stripping statutes.

Here are a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping#Further_federal_statutes

ETA: And again, see my point about ex post facto laws and original jurisdiction. Even if Congress has the authority to pass a judicial stripping statue preventing the SCOTUS from having appellate authority (in cases where the SCOTUS lacks original jurisdiction--so if it's a suit filed by a state or states, there is no possibility of such a statute), you can't do it after the fact, so I don't think it's possible to use statues like this to reverse or overturn a SCOTUS decision.

ETA: But again, I don't think it's fair to take Cain's comments as gross misunderstanding of the separation of powers as much as it is to take it as a position statement. He thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. That should be outrageous enough.

So his comments about abortion being that the president had no power over it when he said stuff about not interfearing count as talking about the power of the president and this does not?

 

[eeyore1954]

"I'm Herman Cain and I do not know what the job of the President does!"

Here is what he really said.

I would lead the charge to overturn the Supreme Court if they overturned DOMA,” Cain insisted. “Whether that was new legislation coming out of the Congress like Rep. [Michele] Bachmann said. The United States Congress is supposed to pass laws so if they did overturn DOMA, that charge, I would lead to reverse that.”

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So his comments about abortion being that the president had no power over it when he said stuff about not interfearing [sic] count as talking about the power of the president and this does not?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. My criticism of his abortion statements is that he has contradicted himself in stating what his position is, not that he is confused as to the authority of the president.

ETA: And again, that he thinks gay people should not be allowed to marry one another is reason enough to oppose his candidacy, IMO. No need to oppose him for tenuous (and probably false) reasons.

 

[BenBurch]

It's not about his knowledge or lack thereof. I think he does know how this works, he just thinks we don't. It is about his disgusting attitude.

 

[Mark6]

Rick Santorum: “Unless we protect the institution of marriage, our country will fall.”

Yea so we should make divorce illegal.

I would not be surprised if Rick Santorum actually wants to make divorce illegal. He seems to follow Catholic doctrine (pre-Vatican II) to the letter, and mean it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is what he really said.

I would lead the charge to overturn the Supreme Court if they overturned DOMA,” Cain insisted. “Whether that was new legislation coming out of the Congress like Rep. [Michele] Bachmann said. The United States Congress is supposed to pass laws so if they did overturn DOMA, that charge, I would lead to reverse that.”

It sounds like he meant to say something else, probably, "or a constitutional amendment" but forgot his lines. Then he just repeated in butchered form the "I would lead the charge" part--"that charge, I would lead to reverse that". BTW, if we parse that last bit literally (keeping both "that"s consistently referring to the first phrase), he said he would lead the charge to reverse legislation that would overturn DOMA, and I'm certain he didn't mean to say that.

So the two points I would take from this: he's not very good at public speaking, and he's opposed to gay marriage.

Couple that with his childish "999" proposal and his lack of experience in government, and it's more than enough reason to oppose his candidacy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not about his knowledge or lack thereof. I think he does know how this works, he just thinks we don't. It is about his disgusting attitude.

I disagree. See eeyore's post of the actual quote.