So what if it's from Fox News? What's your point?
I love socialists who have such faith in Congress being infallible
I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
Not everyone is that fond of brown nosers.I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
Bad comparison. The argument against the state law is that it's preempted by federal law. Both laws were passed by elected representatives. Only the federal laws were passed by national representatives.
I disagree on the comparison. Both laws may or may not be legal. Hence the court cases.
So you think it ok for the President and Congress to make laws that goes against the Constitution, but States can't make laws that may go against Federal law?
The problem is we don't know for sure if the Health Care bill is legal. As we don't know for sure if State illegal immigratiion laws are legal.
Your like Obama. You think the Health Care bill is legal. You think the State illegal immigration law isn't and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Yet, time will tell. That is why we have court challenges to legislation.
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?
"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?!
Now what do you think when I tell you that it was actually Mitt Romney who said it -- except of course using "conservatives" in place of "liberals"?
I was being sarcastic, as was the post I replied to. I assumed that everybody thought that Chris Matthews's comment made him look ridiculous.He's addicted to tingle... can't get to sleep without it. His sleep literally depends upon Obama staying President ... :lamo
Got a link?
I also bring that up whenever a Conservative law is being overruled by the unConstitutional power of judicial review. In a predatory power grab, Marshall and his court interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. That is as illogical as, "God wouldn't let people believe in Him if He didn't exist," cheating by using the desired conclusion as part of the proof.The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
I also bring that up whenever a Conservative law is being overruled by the unConstitutional power of judicial review. In a predatory power grab, Marshall and his court interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. That is as illogical as, "God wouldn't let people believe in Him if He didn't exist," cheating by using the desired conclusion as part of the proof.
Go to the 5:50 mark.
Obviously if Obama said something like that conservatives would be bouncing off the walls.
It is enough to give the people, the Congress, and the President the right to interpret the Constitution. It is even better for them to give actual reasons rather than just referring to this vague and shallow document, e.g., that Obamacare will bankrupt us or make us too dependent on the government, etc. Constitutionalists are trying to repeat the medieval mistake of letting the Vatican have the power to interpret the Bible rather than allowing the self-government of believers to commune directly with God through their own sacred document, which was first proposed in the Reformation. Obviously, the Constitution did not delegate the Supreme Court or else that body would have been appealed to starting 12 years before it appointed itself to be the Vatican of America. This usurpation is not a balancing check; it is really just another outside power grab over us, the people. "The Supreme Court lets us govern ourselves correctly by telling us which of our laws they won't let us enforce."I don't think its the type of petitio principii you're suggesting. Our Constitution has to give something the power to interpret laws and whether real world events and issues are within them or violate them. You're saying the social contract can't delegate a power to interpret the social contract.
"Interpret" should not have come to suggest "power over," or "power to change as it sees fit," but that's what we have--a Court that won't go so far as to admit anything is necessarily unconstitutional. The problem is that some SCOTUS interpretations have effectively changed the Constitution without going through an amendment process. They have a real opportunity here to once again check and balance the other branches as they were meant to.
I would be nice if our all powerful SCOTUS were truly non-partisan. Unfortunately, this is not at all the case. 4 right-winger, 4 left-wingers and only one, slightly right judge making all the decisions. I must say that this court truly should have been Meritocracy based. We're lucky that it's even closed to balanced.