House Votes to Prevent Court Review of Pledge. (Slippery Slope Alert!)

[Tracer]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/09/24/house_votes_to_prevent_court_review_of_pledge/


By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff Ê|Ê September 24, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The House yesterday voted to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a dramatic move meant to thwart what the bill's sponsors call "activist" judges on the federal bench.
ADVERTISEMENT


The measure, approved 247 to 173, is part of an effort by Republicans to restrict the courts' actions on several hot-button issues. In July, the House approved a measure that would limit the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Another bill pending in Congress would restrict the courts' authority to rule on cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments.

"This is the beginning of a trend, and it's unprecedented in terms of the breadth of what they want to do," said Terri Schroeder, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the measures.


Ñ This is an appalling corruption of the separation of powers.

[ClassWarrior]

1. They don't want these issues to ever be resolved.

Once they're resolved, the RW loses the hot-button issues that they dangle like a carrot in front of the rubes. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas."

23.

[AIJ Alom]

2. Goodbye checks and balances....

[9119495]

3. Fear not the constitutionality of these laws can be challenged.

Then the other policies can be challenged.

[dignan27]

4. supreme court justices = activist judges

I knew it was only a matter of time before some republican made that comparison

[johnfunk]

5. This neo-Stalinist "loyalty oath" should be abolished altogether

1) From the "how to piss off wingnuts" department: remind them that the Pledge was written by a Socialist.

2) Forcing or pressuring people to recite said loyalty oath including "under God" is, as far as I am concerned, a violation of every citizen's First Amendment rights.

[napi21]

6. WAIT A MINUTE! Can the congress do that?

I'm mo lawyer, but the legislature makes the laws, and those laws are then tested in the courts. I don't think the legislature CAN restrict the courts actions. They may try, but I don't think it's within their authority to actually do it.

[trogdor]

9. They're talking about the federal appeals courts.

I do believe Congress has responsibility for them. They can't tell the Supremes what to do, though.

[napi21]

11. They may have responsibility, but not jurisdiction.

the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_3_0.html

The link covers the structure of the Fed. Court System. I don't see anything that says Congress has any authority over them.

Isn't that why we fight so much over judicial nominations?

[Q3JR4]

15. Article III, sec 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. "

So sayith the constitution of this country. This part of the law, however, has never before been used. It would basically pit congress against the supreme court, and since it's the court's job to decide constitutionality of different cases, they will sit in judgment of a law meant to curtail their power.

I for one don't see that happening.

[Mrs_Beastman]

7. very Hitler-esqe of them

[Beetwasher]

8. Umm, Can't The Court Just Rule This As Unconstitutional?

I think they can, and they should.

What is it w/ Repubs not understanding the concept of separation of powers? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical...

[Atman]

10. WHICH court? The Bush SCOTUS?

This is a master stroke...even as the Florida Supreme Court rules exactly that, that the legislature cannot overrule the court, they congress does this anyway. Why? They know they have the Bush Buddies in their court.

[atreides1]

12. Not This SCOTUS

This resolution takes away their ability to decide what is and isn't constitutional.

This SCOTUS will not allow any of their power to be taken by Congress.

[Stuckinthebush]

13. They don't have that power

Sure they can do it, but the court will laugh in their face and beat them with a stick. The court has the power to say "f*ck off" in this area.

It's an election year play.

You know, our country has really gone into the crapper, hasn't it?

[sybylla]

14. I'd like to know who the hell voted for this.

Anyone know the bill number?

[serryjw]

16. HR 2028.....VOTE!

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2004&rollnumber=467

[Amigust]

19. Who were the Dems who voted with De Lay on this?

Comfort and aid to the enemy.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

18. These sacrilegious bonzos need to re-read the Ten Commandments ...

... starting with the one that says "You shall not hold up the Name to a vain purpose."

I can't imagine a vainer use of the Name than jockeying for political points in an election year.

Disgusting ...

[Guaranteed]

20. That's right...if the Florida legislature can't do this to the Florida

courts with that brain-damaged woman, I don't see how Congress can do that to the federal courts.

Congress would have to change the Constitution in order to do this.