It was many years back, but I was taught that the SC's only job was to weigh the constitutionality of law. Controlling the president was never mentioned.
It's interesting how the politics of hate, to make people believe that others who have differing opinions & views should be treated as the enemy, have opened so many people up to desiring the executive branch assume legislative powers and effectively erase the legislative branch.
So anyone else here think Ghirardelli chocolate is really damned delicious? It's like $2.30 a bar but my god is it good.
What legislative powers are you referring to?
The expansion of executive authority has been a bipartisan move lasting decades, btw.
I never said it was the result of one party only. The executive branch can pick and choose which laws it chooses to enforce, and rewrite law through executive orders.
And people desire this to continue, so long as "their guy" is in control of the executive branch.
It was many years back, but I was taught that the SC's only job was to weigh the constitutionality of law. Controlling the president was never mentioned.
The discussion going back to the original topic of this thread, is based on courts tending to refusing to listen to lawsuits of the legislative branch against the executive branch.The executive branch has always had the power to prioritize the enforcement of laws, and executive orders do not override statutes. If an executive order conflicts with a duly enacted statute, the statute wins.
If Congress thinks that the president is acting unlawfully they have the ability to take this to the courts, btw. They rarely choose to do so. If you want to talk about 'erasing' the legislative branch, Congress is choosing to let it happen.
Hmm, not really. I wish Congress would take a more assertive role today and 'my guy' is in the White House. Sadly, Congress prefers to hand more and more of its power to the executive in practice because it allows them to escape unpopular decisions.
The issue here is the cowardice and craven nature of Congress, IMO.
I had the radio on as I was going somewhere today in my car and caught just a piece of an argument that described the war between the President and Congress as the Supreme court's fault. It said they won't step up to the plate and deal with the checks and balance power issues between the executive and legislative, like they are supposed to. Does anybody know what this was all about? It sounded interesting.
I'm guessing the topic resulted from Jonathan Turley's remarks before Congress.
But I believe that Congress must petition the SCOTUS so that they can rule on the expansion of the President's powers.
IMO, it's up to Congress and too soon to blame the SCOTUS.
Fern
If you can`t add anything why post? Start your own thread about Chocolate!So anyone else here think Ghirardelli chocolate is really damned delicious? It's like $2.30 a bar but my god is it good.
If you can`t add anything why post? Start your own thread about Chocolate!
“People need to understand, policies change and even presidents change. But these powers are hard to get back, and I think that people will rue the day when they were silent as we created this über-presidency, this massively powerful presidency, and created this instability within the system.
"The courts have essentially removed themselves from this process and are refusing to deal with separation of powers questions, and that has left the two branches in this sort of raw power play that we see every day."
This is the biggest problem I think:
Will we get to a point where Congressional elections lose much of their meaning? If the President can what (s)he wants anyway what's the point?
The SCOTUS has rules I don't understand. My question is who could petition the court to stop this problem Prof. Turley testifies about? I.e., who has what the court calls the 'standing' necessary to file a case?
Read more carefully to see if Prof Turley answered the question. I didn't see it addressed but now note he also blames the courts:
I'd like to hear how the courts are "refusing" to deal with this.
Fern
I will see if LunarRay will pipe in on this as he has an interest in law and the Supreme Court, etc, next time his personality takes possession of me.
You rang? ()
The SCOTUS gets to play either by being the Court of Original Jurisdiction - like issues between the States, and through appellate review of lower court decisions. That is what Article 3 says... more or less.
Turley seems to forget that Congress itself has the power to remedy the issue... Impeach in the House and Try in the Senate... As then Majority Leader Ford said, "an impeachable offense is what ever the majority of the House decides it is". And in Nixon v US the SCOTUS said they did not have the authority to decide if the Senate properly tried a defendant.
All that SCOTUS can do is decide some issue is Kosher or not and send back to the lower court for Remedy, if not Kosher. But for them it is narrow issue by narrAt about 4 minutes inow issue and even fast tracked takes time.... longer than an impeachment and trial process... or could be.
IF Congress don't like what Obama is doing they can file suit... I know of no blockade in the way that supports Turley's comment...or what might be inferred by his comments.. I think he means the court could broadly decide stuff so to include what is not narrowly before the court. like Hamdi and Hamdan v Rummy. They could have included words that went beyond Gitmo stuff to include drone strikes on US citizens in Monaco.
At about 4 minutes into this video:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/...reach-were-at-a-constitutional-tipping-point/
He gives some idea of his critique of the Court, but I don't understand it.
I presume he is speaking to the issue of 'Standing' in cases... Standing is not mentioned in the Constitution or even implied... IOW, you can't file a suit without having Standing... You can't sue George cuz he bit my dog.... bit your dog fine but you've no standing to file for me. Standing has merit to keep the rift raft from getting involved but limits Congress critters from Separation of Power issues... You'd have to have some basis to file a suit or intervene. Amicus briefs have been the usual way to get your opinion before the court when you don't have standing... They don't have any impact, however, if there is no case filed.
I copied this from somewhere once upon a time...
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the Constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."
"The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
I guess it is hard to show you've been harmed by something done that benefits you.. hehehehe
This is a sticky issue... Congress does nothing so Obama does something... Perhaps Turley would prefer everyone go home and stay there until they can agree to do something.. Or leave my Emperor Obama to officiate over his dominion... I never did like Georgetown... too Catholic.
The court is avoiding and Turley thinks members should have standing to file suit. SCOTUS practices a no harm no standing theory... But there is harm, I agree. They can impeach Obama for those imperial actions, though.