Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Cons... - 3/14/2013 1:44:19 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 1:54:52 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline 		If Congress can't, why do we need it? Let SCOTUS govern.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:00:06 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:00:14 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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."

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:02:19 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:07:44 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		Two words Dred Scott

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:10:30 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Two words Dred Scott

An excellent example.


_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:15:19 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:21:31 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So, who is?

The armed populace.


_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:23:39 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		The same one that is out powered by the government?



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:24:04 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:26:41 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		'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.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:47:12 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 2:48:25 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		You are far more optimistic than I am about the intelligence of the majority of our populace.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 3:59:40 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 4:35:14 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 5:20:43 PM   
Baroana


Posts: 1480
Joined: 11/13/2011
Status: offline 		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."

(in reply to muhly22222)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 5:26:36 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		I got that impression as well.. the complaint about the "liberal bias" though 5 members, I believe, were seated by Republican presidents.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Baroana)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 6:14:11 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are ... - 3/14/2013 7:40:07 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Jim Bridenstine - SC does not decide what laws are Constitutional Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109