tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post4094657960877090116..comments2024-01-09T15:03:54.986-05:00Comments on Wolf Howling: Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich Has It Right On Our 'Imperial' CourtsGWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-19393916821860186972011-12-23T12:42:51.135-05:002011-12-23T12:42:51.135-05:00I think we will have to agree to disagree on this ...I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. When judges feel free to knowingly and clearly insinuate their policy preferences as Constitutional law in contravention to what the drafters meant, then there is a systemic problem that needs fixing. At a minimum, judges should feel the glare of the other two bodies over their shoulder, and know that they risk impeachment for such blatant acts. It is a century beyond the point where the other two branches should have provided neutral and binding guidance on the Courts to interpret, not amend, the Constitution. <br /><br />Moreover, the Boumediene decision could actually be more costly to our nation in the long run than was the Dred Scott decision. Nowhere in Article III are the Courts granted any role to play in our national defense. Yet now every single person captured in war is entitled to a habeaus corpus hearing in an article III court. <br /><br />If they have that right, then pursuant to the VIth Amendment, it will require that the persons capturing them or ordering their capture appear at the hearing to show cause. So do company commander's and platoon leaders have to be pulled off the front line. What if the Sgt. who made the capture is dead. And if no cause is shown, what then, is the person released into our society if we can't return them to a beligirent nation? Do CIA agents have to appear and give testimony on classified material? It is a nightmare - and one that certainly wasn't imagined by the Founders who were in the midst of a war when they were drafting the Constitution.GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-62082797166841967882011-12-23T01:14:13.259-05:002011-12-23T01:14:13.259-05:00That's mainly a matter of picking Presidents s...That's mainly a matter of picking Presidents so as to move the court in that direction... I.e., allow the Dems as little control over the PotUS as possible.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-668585109901658322011-12-22T06:15:05.429-05:002011-12-22T06:15:05.429-05:00You're right on that, but no one arguing for r...You're right on that, but no one arguing for reform is in any way arguing for stipping the Supreme Court of the power judicial review of Constitutional questions. Indeed, it is that right that sets us apart from the UK, where they have a tyranny of the majority since 1900 when the Parliament claimed themselves supreme, with the exception of Human Rights Laws. Actually, we have the flip side of the problem here, where the Court's have declared themselves supreme and, since 1950, both declared their decisions to have the full force and effect of constitutional amendments while disregarding the meaning and limits of the Constitution. Not good that. <br /><br />If we can just start limiting the Courts to making good faith efforts at originalism, that would pretty much be the school solution to the problem.GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-29138596824268819842011-12-21T21:40:09.947-05:002011-12-21T21:40:09.947-05:00>>> they are vested with the final power ...>>> <i>they are vested with the final power to divine the Constitution’s meaning (a power found nowhere in the Constitution)</i><br /><br />Dude, while I sorta concur with you on some levels, the simple fact is that the courts took this power while most of the Founding Fathers were still alive -- indeed, IIRC, Jefferson was president when the Jay court claimed to have that power.<br /><br />It's kinda hard to argue the intent of the FFs wasn't 'x' when the first instance of 'x' was during the first 25 years of the nation, and they didn't express substantial dismay over it.<br /><br />Ergo, while, technically, the power of judicial review isn't granted by the Constitution, it's not a rational argument to claim the FFs did not approve of the idea.<br /><br />I believe the biggest problem lies not in judicial review itself but in the execution of it.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.com