House votes to limit Supreme Court power in Pledge case

[Love Bug]

WASHINGTON -- The House passed legislation Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words ``under God'' should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a politically and emotionally charged debate, Democrats said majority Republicans in the chamber were debasing the Constitution in order to force a vote that could hurt Democrats in the election.

Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.

The bill, which was passed 247-173, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation and would prevent federal courts from striking the words ``under God'' from the pledge.
(snip)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4996820.html

[skooooo]

1. How can the House prevent the SC from hearing a case??

Does that make any sense?

[benburch]

2. Totally worthless bill.

You cannot constrain the court by legislation. Period.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Reefer madness.

[MasonJar]

4. Totally unConstitutional.

[Zensea]

5. the Marshall Doctrine has been around a long time

Somehow I bet every judge in the land is laughing their heads off about this piece of legislation.

& thinking of Marbury v. Madison

[Hepburn]

26. LMBO!!!

I wonder how long it will take for the SCOTUS to find THAT law un-Constitutional? Why do the Repubs do such DUMB things???

[Book Lover]

6. So every atheist and JWitness in America

is unAmerican? OK, then you fuckers don't need my tax money.....

[Endangered Specie]

24. No Taxation Without Representation.

[politicat]

7. unfortunately, it's going to be a PITA to get it back to the Courts to be

ruled unconsitutional.

Gotta love it when they decide that we atheists don't have the right to sue.

I've never felt more like a second class citizen than I do right now.

Pcat

[Realityhack]

8. You nailed it.

This is one of those things from whats the matter with kansas. They know it wont hold up by it will slow down progress and they can wave it in front of foaming fundies for votes. Then when it does get struck down they can rant about 'activist judges' in front of the same lunitics for votes again.

Then they propose a constitutional amendment that they know wont pass.

What I find amazing is that so many people tow that party line every time despite KNOWING that it is not only uter BS but that it flys directly in the face of everything they themselves claim to stand for.
You would expect it to be more difficult to find people that would sell out for votes but such is the nature of a representitive democracy.

[KennedyGuy]

9. also "barred" gay marriage

these idiots also barred the Supremes from taking up the issue of gay marriage. People better wake up and realize what is at stake and just how bad four more years of this crowd would be.

[Raiden]

10. What's the point?

This is totally unconstitutional... eom

[creeksneakers2]

11. A power like this shouldn't be used

over such a trivial matter. The GOP will do anything to create uproars over symbols.

Congress does have the power to limit jurisdiction.

Article III section 2

Clause 2: 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.

I'm frightened that, if the GOP will use this awesome power just to score some political points, imagine what the Fascists might do with it later.

These guys HAVE to be stopped.

[HarveyBriggs]

12. That and a buck won't buy you coffee at Starbucks.

I'm hoping that in retaliation the Supreme Court confirms a ruling that any Republican legislator with a penis under 4" is not allowed to vote.

Ought to make the entire contingent impotent.

Harvey Briggs

[txdude10]

13. Unfortunately, Congress can

enlarge or reduce Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The problem is that if this legislation becomes law (it still has to get through the Senate and the President)and then is challenged, the Supreme Court itself will have to determine whether the law is constitutional or not. And as right-wing and crazy as Scalia and his conservative brethren are, I don't think they too will consent to a law that basically strips them of some of their authority.

[w4rma]

14. LOL. They can't do that, the courts will strike THIS bill down. (nt)

[Kenneth ken]

15. don't these bastards ever sleep?

every time I turn around there's a new piece of crap being pushed to both undermine their opposition and the US as a nation.

Too many think-tanks. All they do is think up ways to wreck this country.

This legislation has to be stopped, or it will be used to justify more legislation further limiting the power of "activist judges."

Then, bang goes one of the three arms of democracy.


I need to stop turning around. . .


edit: I need to remember to use spell-check before I post too.

[sr_pacifica]

16. Here we go with the "activist judges" bit

the NeoCons' pet phrase now.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., the author of the amendment on legislation before the House Thursday, said the high court is likely to rule differently if it considers the substance of the case and “if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say that it is wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say ’under God’ in the pledge.”

And it's unmanly:

In such a scenario, Akin said, Congress will have “emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about.”

[OneBlueSky]

17. unconstitutional on its face . . .

there's no way the SC would let this law, if enacted, stand . . . it diminishes their own constitutional power, and you can bet they won't stand for that, no matter what their political persuasion . . .

[Endangered Specie]

25. I agree...

When the Shit hits the fan, each branch is going to stand up for itself and its power and influence, regardless of the issue.

When it comes to having your branchs power threatened, issues come second.

[liveoaktx]

18. Roll Count Vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll467.xml

[dave123williams]

19. This is totally reflective of their hate of America...

I know CHILDREN who have a better understanding of things Constitutional than these mouth-breathers do.

The Courts have had the power to review the constitutionality of legislation since Marbury V. Madision, I think.

What kind of a fucking retard would vote for this bill?

[liveoaktx]

20. Two mouth-breathers are my Democratic reps from Texas districts

[dave123williams]

21. Spineless retards afraid of being painted as unpatriotic...

[Endangered Specie]

22. Gott Mit Uns!

[Endangered Specie]

23. Explain to me how the House can restrict the SCOTUS...

unless its a constitutional amendment? Cant the SCOTUS rule this law unconstitutional? This makes no sense... If you can pass a law (that cant be challenged in court) to prevent the courts from considering certain cases, then hell, the courts are useless.

[creeksneakers2]

28. They don't need an amendment

because the constitution already grants Congress the power regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (See my post above)

The Supreme Court could try to say that this law that limits their jurisdiction is itself unconstitutional, but it would be a tough sell. The language in the constitution plainly gives Congress the power. That power has long been considered an established point in Constitutional law.

If there is a showdown, the whole system of law could break down. School districts wouldn't know whether to listen to Congress or the courts. I'm pretty sure that the courts would just make the kids say "under God," rather than starting a constitutional crisis in the whole country.

This really sucks.

These Fascists could use this same power, say, to eliminate the court's jurisdiction in "disputed" elections.

[Realityhack]

31. Not true

What passage are you thinking of?

From the constitution
Artical 3, Section 2, Clause 1
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Note 10: This Clause has been affected by amendment XI.

Congress has no power to limmit the courts jurisdiction. There already was a showdown on this in the early history of the country and the court won. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they would seed this power.

RH

[greenohio]

32. Um dude.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

"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. "

This alarmed me so I looked it up. Doesn't look like the founders got this one right. What they are doing is legit, though amoral.

Looks like we need constitutional amendments for this and the electoral college.

[creeksneakers2]

33. Essay from FindLaw

Thus, see Justice Frankfurter's remarks in National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 655 (1948) (dissenting): ''Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.'' In The Francis Wright, 105 U.S. 381, 385 -386 (1882), upholding Congress' power to confine Supreme Court review in admiralty cases to questions of law, the Court said: ''hile the appellate power of this court under the Constitution extends to all cases within the judicial power of the United States, actual jurisdiction under the power is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to prescribe. . . . What those powers shall be, and to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been, proper subjects of legislative control. Authority to limit the jurisdiction necessarily carries with it authority to limit the use of the jurisdiction. Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to reexamination and review, while others are not.'' See also Luckenbuch S. S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 537 (1926); American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K.W. RY., 148 U.S. 372, 378 (1893); United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393 (1908); United States v. Young, 94 U.S. 258 (1876). Numerous restrictions on the exercise of appellate jurisdiction have been upheld. E.g., Congress for a hundred years did not provide for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases, except upon a certification of division by the circuit court: at first appeal was provided in capital cases and then in others. F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, op. cit., n. 12, 79, 109-120. Other limitations noted heretofore include minimum jurisdictional amounts, restrictions of review to questions of law and to questions certified from the circuits, and the scope of review of state court decisions of federal constitutional questions. See Walker v. Taylor, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 64 (1847). Though McCardle is the only case in which Congress successfully forestalled an expected decision by shutting off jurisdiction, other cases have been cut off while pending on appeal, either inadvertently, Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 541 (1866), or intentionally, Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398 (1878), by raising the requirements for jurisdiction without a reservation for pending cases. See also Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112 (1952); District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62 (1901).

[katusha]

27. need to turn this back on them

tie the "no judicial review" in with the move for no "frivilous lawsuits" and military tribunals in gitmo to come up with an attack along the lines of "the republicans don't want you to have your day in court" or something like that.

[Bandit]

29. If they don't want the courts to rule why are they making such

a fuss about justices being ratified by the Senate? Apparently now Judges do not matter. Only King George and Congress. We must do everything in our power to regain congress and stop the insanity.

[Democat]

30. The right wing hates America and hates the Constitution

We need to kick these assholes out of office and never allow them to become powerful again.

[Marthe48]

34. They wouldn't use their authority to prevent Bush from "going to war"

but they waste their time and our money on this horsecrap. Just like idiot freedom fries. The rule of law is a 2 way street, and it only works if both sides adhere to it and defend its existence. If the majority of the House of Representatives is too stupid to understand who and what they are representing and defending, they don't need to be on Capitol Hill.