WTF, mate!?

[trinityvixen]

You. Have. Got. To. Be. F-ing. Kidding. Me.

From The New York Times:
...Republican leaders have also been chipping away at the Constitution by proposing to deny judges jurisdiction to review selected acts of Congress. The House passed a measure yesterday retaining the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" phrase and prohibiting any federal court - including, outrageously, the Supreme Court - from judging the law's constitutionality.

Look, I'm not a Bible-thumper, nor am I an atheist, but either way, this stinks. You must be joking. Congress must be joking. Ban the Supreme Court from doing something? From doing anything? They are supposed to be our last line, our final word in this country. We are supposed to believe that their life-long seats are earned because they are tough but fair, intelligent but not devious, and, above all, nonpartisan and concerned with preserving American freedom and justice. There is no law that can't be contested in the courts, and, if it is worthy, it goes to the Supreme Court. To say that a law is beyond the court's--any court's, let alone the Supreme Court--jurisdiction is, as this op-ed said, a serious undermining of our Constitution and the government we have derived from it.

Before, the House decided Federal judges can't hold reviews over the legal definition of marriage. "Marriage Protection Act," my ass. Notice how things that sound so great are the worst offences against human rights and commen sense? (need I remind people of the Patriot Act). Now, not even the Supreme Court is sacred. Oh for the days of blissful ignorance where I still believed that THE FUCKING POWERS OF GOVERNMENT BRANCHES COULD NOT BE ALTERED WITHOUT A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY!!! Man, I cannot believe that this is possible. The restriction of powers of a branch of our government needs only a few more assholes on one side than the opposing side in order to pass? So, what, Congress could pass laws saying that the President can't strike down laws of their choosing? Why is that fair? Congress is the one with the power to make the laws, but the COURTS are the ones that uphold their validity and the laws themselves. What if the Supreme Court had been forbidden from taking on cases challenging the illegality of abortion thirty-forty years ago? What if Congress had said, "Nope, can't touch this" and we never got Roe vs Wade? Brown v Board of Education? Can you imagine what landmark cases would never had been made had this partisan hysteria existed all along?

What I really want to know is if the courts can rule on this law. Wouldn't that bite Congress in the ass? They pass a law that says the Supreme Court cannot do anything about the 'under God' provision in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court reviews this law and finds that it is acting outside the powers of the Congress, namely determining the function of the Court and not the other way around. The Supreme Court strikes down the law. What then? Is this just a stupid ploy to buy the votes of the faithful by promising them that the government will force all the bloody liberal heathens to say "GOD" in school? Is it just to buy time so that the "God" clause remains in a state of legal limbo a bit longer while the Bible Belt works on new arguments why it's perfectly okay to demand that "God" must stay, in this one case, associated forever with the USA?

Got news for those Repubs....God ain't on your side when you play dirty. Not never, not when it's 'for your own good' that really isn't.

Comments

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's actually kind of funny in its outrageousness.

Normally, the court can strike down any law as unconstitutional.
So, Congress passes a law they think probably will be struck down...
...and append "and, um, you can't do anything about this - it's the law!"

It takes the concept of "circular logic" to new heights - or new depths, we might say.

Anyway, no self-respecting judge at any level will see that and say, "Oh, no I can't hear that case!" They'll say, "Pff, yeah, whatever."

It is more evidence of the hubris of the right, of course. Their ability to act as though they have a mandate after squeaking out an election victory never ceases to amaze me.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

Hm, does that make it the final word just because the House says so? I don't remember how this whole thing works, but isn't the Senate involved in approving it somehow?

[fairest.livejournal.com]

Holy shit. That's unbelievable.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Naw, the Senate would have to approve it, too, just like any other law. Dahlia Lithwick talks about a bill of this sort here. Even if it passed, the Supreme Court would find the thing unconstitutional.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

what date is that from? There's gotta be a way to post stuff like that more publicly, for more people to see. Our media just doesn't cover all of this usefull stuff.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

Remember, the House always passes stupid shit, because 99% of the time, you don't actually need a majority to pass a bill in the House, just a majority of a quorum. It's not worrying until someone big in the Senate throws support behind it.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

www.congress.org

It's an independent site dedicated to actually letting the public know what's on the table in the Congress.

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

The thing about jurisdiction of courts is that it's almost all provided BY CONGRESS. Now, as far as the law prevents the Sup.Ct. from hearing a challenge to it, or to the things which it revokes jurisdiction for, that's dubious. But as far as District and Circuit courts go? Since they are purely creatures of Congress, the congress has a maximum jurisdiction they can provide to them (limited by the constitution), but is not even required to allow them to exist.