Let's make miscarriages illegal.

[Thorn]

I live in the South you have no idea how hateful people can be, and polite, weird combination.

[Felch]

The founders, aside from Jefferson who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, didn't bat an eye when Justice Marshall asserted the right. Basically confirming that it was implied that the Supreme Court would be able to have such priviledges considering that it would have to determine whether an action be deemed lawful based on an act or the Constitution if they are at odds and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would determine Constitution controles. There was parliamentary supremacy in the UK, because there was no written Constitution to compare and contrast the acts of Parliament to.

Is Judicial Review in the Constitution or isn't it? Given that Article 3 doesn't provide the Courts with a Necessary and Proper clause, I'd say that it's a usurpation. There's no need to amend the Constitution. Congress merely has to terminate the office of Judges who invoke it, based on their tenure "during good Behavior." Congress choosing not to terminate a Judge's office is not assent, it's merely inaction.

[Thorn]

Well i say abolish the death penalty first to prove that you are series about a culture of life, then we can "talk" about abortion.

[Felch]

Fine, abolish it. I'm against it because it's killing someone who surrendered. Now, if someone surrenders, is imprisoned, and commits a violent crime, then that could be considered perfidy, and they could be killed. And if they refuse to surrender, it might be necessary for police to kill them. But the idea of accepting a surrender and then executing a person is treacherous.

[Hauldren Collider]

The idea that a group of 9 judges can arbitrarily decide what the law says is completely absurd. They are judges, not lawmakers, and they should only tell us whether something is legal, not whether something is correct policywise. I'll just leave it at that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying that nobody would have legal standing to protect the legal rights of the fetus?

No, I said that the SCOTUS wouldn't have say they had a valid claim of action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is Judicial Review in the Constitution or isn't it? Given that Article 3 doesn't provide the Courts with a Necessary and Proper clause, I'd say that it's a usurpation. There's no need to amend the Constitution. Congress merely has to terminate the office of Judges who invoke it, based on their tenure "during good Behavior." Congress choosing not to terminate a Judge's office is not assent, it's merely inaction.

Let's look at this rationally. The Court has to decide if action conforms to the law. When a Congressional law and the Constitution conflict, the Court has to decide which one to go with. Obviously both can't be applied if they conflict and the Supremacy Clause dictates the Constitution controls.

So yes, "judicial review" is in the Constitution, those specific words are just not used.

Other branches can decide to try to limit the Court's jurisdiction or exercise political control, as it has in the past. Usually though it hasn't gone well (FDR's court packing plan).

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea that a group of 9 judges can arbitrarily decide what the law says is completely absurd. They are judges, not lawmakers, and they should only tell us whether something is legal, not whether something is correct policywise. I'll just leave it at that.

Someone doesn't understand the history of the common law.

[Felch]

Let's look at this rationally. The Court has to decide if action conforms to the law. When a Congressional law and the Constitution conflict, the Court has to decide which one to go with. Obviously both can't be applied if they conflict and the Supremacy Clause dictates the Constitution controls.

So yes, "judicial review" is in the Constitution, those specific words are just not used.

Other branches can decide to try to limit the Court's jurisdiction or exercise political control, as it has in the past. Usually though it hasn't gone well (FDR's court packing plan).

You're 100% cool with this? Nine people that none of us voted for, nine people who have lifelong terms, nine people who aren't even held to the same ethical standards as other federal judges, are the people that you trust with defending the Constitution?

The Supremacy clause binds the Congress to uphold the Constitution. If you don't trust them, why do you trust the SCOTUS? What stops SCOTUS from making decisions that conflict with the Constitution?

In brief, why don't you trust the democratic process? Do you believe that America would be run better if we just gave up voting altogether?

[DinoDoc]

Other branches can decide to try to limit the Court's jurisdiction or exercise political control, as it has in the past. Usually though it hasn't gone well (FDR's court packing plan).

The Court ceased being a major impediment to the New Deal after 1937 and FDR was able to construct a majority on the Court favorable to his agenda. He was also reelected in 1940. I'm having trouble seeing FDR as a cautionary tale.

[Hauldren Collider]

Someone doesn't understand the history of the common law.

No, I don't think common law should apply to the constitution. Duh?

[C0ckney]

oh good grief HC. he means the jurisprudence which comes a common law system.

[Darius871]

Or like that Dred Scott v. Sandford law that made sure them uppity ******s knew their place. In fact, Dred Scott v. Sandford is similar to Roe v. Wade, because it arbitrarily denied a whole class of human beings legal protection and personhood.

I'm so glad we have a Supreme Court that always makes the right decisions. It'd be horrible if the people's elected representatives were involved in forming laws. Who knows what sort of mischief they'd get into?

Oh relax; I'm probably even more averse to Roe (or Marbury itself for that matter) than you are. I was just taking MrFun's silly question to task. To say that "case law = law" is not necessarily to say "case law ought to = law." A law is simply a statement of a directive by an entity with recognized authority to coerce others into compliance using the government's monopoly on the use of force. Whether the fact that general recognition of said entity's authority to do so is unwise (or even unconstitutional) is simply irrelevant to whether its directives are, in fact, "law."

Oh sure, the Court did the right thing in Brown v. Board, but that was just their way of fixing a problem that they'd created.

Plessy forced states to enact Jim Crow laws they otherwise wouldn't have?

It's dangerous to put so much trust and authority in a[n]...unaccountable group of people.

Huh?

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...

The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment. ...

The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[Darius871]

The original document says, "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."

According to that, if Congress passed a law recognizing personhood and legal standing for fetuses, the Court would have to accept it. After all, SCOTUS has jurisdiction, "under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

You'll note that your own quote says nothing whatsoever subordinating the Court to state laws, which are what Roe overturned. Never has there been a law passed by "Congress" that was overturned using "substantive" due process AFAICS.

And that leaves aside that from context the Founders clearly were referring to congressional regulations of "jurisdiction" in the sense of the types of cases that the federal courts can accept and adjudicate, e.g. the federal statutes providing for diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction, bankruptcy jurisdiction, and - gasp - federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 granting "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," such as the federal question of whether a given law complies with the federal Constitution. In other words, whatever jurisdiction you claim the Constitution reserved to Congress and didn't grant to the judiciary in the above quote, Congress nevertheless did grant it expressly, pursuant to the very authority for "such Regulations as the Congress shall make" that you quote.

[Darius871]

Are you saying that nobody would have legal standing to protect the legal rights of the fetus?

Thats what guardians ad litem are for. Nothing anomalous about a GAL seeking an injunction to prevent imminent and irreparable harm.

As would the State have standing to prosecute perpetrators of abortion afterwards for the mere fact of violating the criminal code.