Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 1:44:19 PM)

quote:

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/13/1712431/jim-bridenstine-supreme-court/

The video is attached. And you will notice I placed no slant upon this from the article. And, frankly, Im not sure what he is exactly saying here. Sounds like he is saying that even though the SC rules one way, Congress can override that ruling with a law of their own.

Anyone else's take?



Yachtie -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 1:54:52 PM)

If Congress can't, why do we need it? Let SCOTUS govern.



mnottertail -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:00:06 PM)

Well, it is teabagging, the SCOTUS is heavily stacked by 'conservative' installations.

And what he said was yes, exactly what you said tazzy that given a ruling from the SCOTUS they can make, modify, change laws within those parameters.

Except he didn't go into the ineptitude of the teabaggers and their inability to make those laws.

He does however, make the common teabagger mistake of  not knowing the constitution or what is and isn't constitutional.

All in all, great bunch of inept whining meaningless teabagging.



Moonhead -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:00:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And, frankly, Im not sure what he is exactly saying here.

"Warn't my fault. Fuck you if you think I'm taking any responsibility over this decision. It were them over there, who could have vetoed me, if I hadn't done what I was told to."



JeffBC -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:02:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Anyone else's take?

I'll answer from my own personal perspective.

I think that Citizens United was wildly and blatantly unconstitutional. Clearly, however, the Supreme Court says it IS constitutional. Ergo, they and I have a strong disagreement on the point. I acknowledge that "thems is the rules" but it doesn't make me think that our government is legitimate. It makes me think the SC has been bought and paid for.



BamaD -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:07:44 PM)

Two words Dred Scott



JeffBC -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:10:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Two words Dred Scott

An excellent example.



tazzygirl -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:15:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Anyone else's take?

I'll answer from my own personal perspective.

I think that Citizens United was wildly and blatantly unconstitutional. Clearly, however, the Supreme Court says it IS constitutional. Ergo, they and I have a strong disagreement on the point. I acknowledge that "thems is the rules" but it doesn't make me think that our government is legitimate. It makes me think the SC has been bought and paid for.



That I agree with. And Ron has a strong point as well.

I saw it as whining as well.

But, the representative is also correct, in my opinion, that depending on how the Court is stacked determines what cases are heard and ruled upon.

I just took from his blurb....

quote:

they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case.


... that he feels the Court is not the final word.

So, who is?



JeffBC -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:21:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So, who is?

The armed populace.



tazzygirl -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:23:39 PM)

The same one that is out powered by the government?




Moonhead -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:24:04 PM)

Exactly how many presidents, state governors, elected legal staff and members of either house of representatives have been shot since 1776?
I think the argument that an armed populance is immune to oppression by The Man laughable, if I'm honest.



mnottertail -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:26:41 PM)

'they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules.'
............................

It is a cycle there is no final too it.  President changes; policy changes. SCOTUS changes; ruling changes. Legislative changes, law changes.  



JeffBC -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:47:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The same one that is out powered by the government?

Yup, that's the one. Do you really think that line of reasoning hold water?

But hey, let's not get into gun control. I'll restate my answer.

The final arbiter of the legitimacy of a government is the populace. When they have had enough then they deal themselves a new hand.



tazzygirl -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 2:48:25 PM)

You are far more optimistic than I am about the intelligence of the majority of our populace.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 3:59:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/13/1712431/jim-bridenstine-supreme-court/
The video is attached. And you will notice I placed no slant upon this from the article. And, frankly, Im not sure what he is exactly saying here. Sounds like he is saying that even though the SC rules one way, Congress can override that ruling with a law of their own.
Anyone else's take?


The SCOTUS can overturn itself. Simply ruling something as constitutional today doesn't mean it's always going to be ruled that way, given changes in the leanings of the Justices.



muhly22222 -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 4:35:14 PM)

There actually is historical precedent for ignoring the rulings of the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson, responding the the Court's decision on Cherokee removal (SCOTUS said it wasn't permitted), said, "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Then he (well, van Buren...a Jackson partisan) removed the Cherokee anyway.

Now, the relationship of the institutions was a lot more fluid and open to interpretation at that time. The passage of years has solidified traditions to the point that they're effectively law, despite not necessarily being codified. Also, it's easier for the executive branch to violate a judicial order than the legislative...because the legislative branch has very, very little enforcement power.



Baroana -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 5:20:43 PM)

The quote in the OP doesn't seem to be taking a position either way on whether the Supremes have the right to review legislation for Constitutionality. The point in the quote seems to be that the Court's rulings depend on the legal opinions of the sitting Justices (duh). The person making this statement seems to be unhappy with what he perceives as liberal bias on the part of the Court.

It's the same old thing. When judges make decisions someone doesn't like, they're "judicial activists."



tazzygirl -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 5:26:36 PM)

I got that impression as well.. the complaint about the "liberal bias" though 5 members, I believe, were seated by Republican presidents.



DarkSteven -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 6:14:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day.


Dead wrong. The entire judicial system is charged with determining how laws fit into the framework of existing laws and the Constitution. If the SCOTUS rules, that's it from the highest authority.
quote:



And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules.


Yeah, Republicans whine that the court is too liberal. Dems whine it's too conservative.
quote:



That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.


No. The legislative branch can pass laws. The judicial branch then tries to fit those laws into the existing framework, and has the option to toss them if they clash with the Constitution.



erieangel -> RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional (3/14/2013 7:40:07 PM)

Bridenstine needs to watch some of the old "Schoolhouse Rock" segments because I remember those teaching me that deciding what laws are constitutional is exactly what the SC does (one of their major functions, anyway). And yes, the SC has reversed themselves many times over the years. That is one of the goals of all the recent state laws making it harder to obtain an abortion these days--get the abortion question back before the SC and "hopefully" have Roe v. Wade overturned.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875