Baltimore Sun: GOP lawmakers take aim at U.S. judiciary

Upset over rulings, some in House pursue 'jurisdiction stripping'
By Gail Gibson
Sun reporter
Originally published July 23, 2006
When House Republicans tried last week to block federal courts from hearing challenges to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, U.S. Rep. Todd Akin didn't sugarcoat the latest effort to limit the judiciary: We do this, the Missouri Republican said, "because we don't trust them."
In the simmering feud between Congress and the courts, such "jurisdiction stripping" measures have emerged as a weapon of choice for Republicans

For the most part, the proposals - including the move to allow only state courts to hear Pledge of Allegiance challenges - stand little chance of becoming law, legal scholars and analysts say. But they lay bare ugly tensions between the legislative and judicial branches and could prove to be a potent issue in this year's midterm elections.

Angry about court rulings on issues ranging from private property seizures to same-sex marriage, lawmakers over the past two years have introduced at least a dozen measures aimed at stripping the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, of the authority to rule on any cases involving issues such as public displays of the Ten Commandments, prayer at government meetings or state laws restricting pornography.

Some lawmakers would go further. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin has suggested appointing an inspector general to monitor the federal courts. Another proposal would dilute the influence of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - which four years ago touched off the Pledge of Allegiance furor by ruling that "under God" had turned the patriotic oath into an unconstitutional "profession of religious belief" - by splitting the panel in two. (cont'd)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.gopcourts23jul23,0,4752330.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Not that it is surprising but the Pukes are pushing us closer and closer to a fascist state.

only us oldies would get that commercial reference, I suppose.

anyhow, we are already in fascism. The fact that they openly announce their intent to cement the deal and they face no opposition, is proof. If there was a ghost of a chance of stopping it, they wouldn't cavalierly talk about it.

I mean I'm not that... what?... Oh, nevermind.

LOL
-Hoot

Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution:

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.

There is no way in hell they will manage to modify this in the constitution. It only takes 16 states to shoot it down.

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.

The Supreme Court has original Jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and controversies in which a state is a party. Congress cannot strip or ammend the court of this Jurisdiction. However, in all other cases, the Supreme Court only has appellate Jurisdiction, which allows Congress to make regulations as it sees fit.

In theory, Congress can totally strip the federal court system from hearing any case that arises under appellate Jurisdiction.

And it's the courts that judge the laws, so no the legislative branch can't forbid the courts from hearing any Constitutional case.

As shown above Article III Section 2 says:

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.

Congress can strip the courts of much of their power, and while murky political ground, it would likely be constitutional.

to these idiots? Since I detest Florida with a passion and am planning to move in about 6 months--and also since the "pud" is going to be mostly submerged within the next 30 years or so--I say, for the sake of argument, let em have Florida!! Let all those who think it would be fun to live where your every thought is controlled, where your body is regulated, where your actions are programmed and prescribed, where the Constitution is regarded as a quaint document appealing only to "godless liberals," where diversity, compassion, generosity and loving kindness are something to be afraid of--come together in this place and knock yourselves out! (literally!)

took over as Governor, more Democratic than Republican. As state which gave us Bob Graham and Lawton Chiles.

You might as well say let the Bushbot PNAC group have the whole United States without a fight. We can all move to another country.

Florida might well be submerged by rising waters fed by melting polar ise caps, although, if that happens, so will it happen to all coastal lands. But please, in your bitterness, don't forget that this state is only red in its government, not its people. The situation that reigns in Tallahassee, Florida also reigns in Washington, D.C.

... I do think it is really too bad that the brainless, fundamentalist, "moralist" a-holes couldn't have their own designated state or place that they could run as they see fit, with no handouts or help from the rest of us.

then maybe it's time to let it go to the GOPers, and relocate on the up and coming new beachfronts (wherever they may end up)

"In the 1950s, it was proposed with regard to the loyalty oath cases. In the1960s, it was the reapportionment cases, and then the school prayer cases. In the 1980s, it was not letting federal courts hear abortion cases or busing cases."

i doubt highly that the supreme court (ok, other than possibly alito and scalia) would look kindly upon any legislation that would take power from them. funny how this sort of thing rears its ugly head when a minority wishes to impose its wishes upon the majority though.

Really, really scared.

Because we don't know a tenth of what they've done.

of the "Law and Order" party - of course that was always a bit of ridiculous spin to begin with.

...he tries to strip Congress of their power, Congress mostly stands still for it, then they turn on the Supreme Court, trying to strip it of their legitimate purview, and they're all screwing us over regularly; much like an abusive family where the husband beats the wife, the wife beats the kids, and the kids kick the dog.

Conservatives are fighting amongst themselves, Liberals likewise, the middle class rail at the poor, while the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful, and the mass of Americans watches American Idol and blames immigrants, Democrats, and whatever generation they're not personally a member of, for everything wrong with their lives.

Division is the order of the day...and it's one LONG Fuckin' Day, ain't it?

Countdown to Inauguration Day, 2009

911 days 13h 32m

http://www.theofficialcountdown.com/

government class which studied the THREE branches of government?

The Supreme Court is so named, not just because it was the final court over the U.S. judicial system, but also because it is the FINAL word in ALL legal matters.

The reason that Al Gore did not take the Oath of Office of the U.S. is because the (corrupt) Supreme Court ruled in favor of George Bush. After that, there was no other place to go. Because the Supreme Court rules Supreme over all legislation and legal matters.

which is why you(Todd Akin) will be a meaningless back bencher of a minority party come november!!!

we swear them in?