!!!

[richardf8]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03920:@@@L&summ2=m&

A Bill has been introduced to allow congress to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court. So much for separation of powers!

Comments

unfuckingbelievable.

[parilous]

Obviously, the administration is preparing for Kerry's inevitable legal fight about the results of the upcoming election!

Re: unfuckingbelievable.

[richardf8]

No, its about sending gays to concentration camps. Why go to all that trouble over Kerry when they can just do another Wellstone on him. Hey! Pilot Error! Don't know why these democrats keep hiring incompetent pilots!

[lordrunningclam]

I can see it all now. Congress passes the law, the Supremes declare it unconstitutional and then Congress reverses Supremes' decision. Congress proceeds to introduce bills to revoke every civil and individual rights based SC decision since 1851. Gunfire erupts at the Rayburn building and an angry mob of congressional aides clashes with Supreme Court interns across the reflecting ponds at the mall while congressmen and senators view it from their office windows.

I might as well buy my ticket for Get Me The Hell Outta Here right now.

[lordrunningclam]

Of course. Its remains no less disgusting that politicians can wave the flag with one hand while using the constitution to wipe their bottoms with the other.

[morgan1]

I might as well buy my ticket for Get Me The Hell Outta Here right now.

You and me both. I want to be a citizen of a civilized country.

Let's call it the "Bounced Checks and Skewed Balances Act of 2004"

[3catsjackson]

Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] (introduced 3/9/2004)
[...]
Cosponsors(11):
Rep Coble, Howard - 3/9/2004 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 3/9/2004 [GA-8]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 3/9/2004 [SC-4]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 3/9/2004 [CA-4]
Rep Everett, Terry - 3/9/2004 [AL-2]
Rep Franks, Trent - 3/9/2004 [AZ-2]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 3/9/2004 [VA-5]
Rep Hefley, Joel - 3/9/2004 [CO-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 3/9/2004 [GA-1]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 3/9/2004 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 3/9/2004 [CA-11]So the temptation here is to send contributions to these people's local opponents, CCing the incumbents in the letter of course so they know what they're bringing upon themselves. The further temptation is to spend a weekend putting together an attack ad against the lot of them, and volunteering it for their opponents to air, leaving the extra space at the end for them to splice in "I'm Joe Opponent and I approved this commercial." Seems a tad shifty, but I don't see it as the slightest bit more underhanded than what's been coming out of the

[deckardcanine]

Think the Empire will fall in our lifetimes? It's hard to pinpoint an exact date, but there are certainly signs of decline.

Should Congress be able to override the Presidential Veto?

[grassyneal]

The Constitution says that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over some cases, and appellate jurisdiction over other cases, with exceptions that the Congress shall make (article 3, section 2).

What this bill seems to do is to make this latent power more manifest, in the same fashion that the Congress may override a presidential veto if two thirds of each house of Congress wills it (article 1, section 7).

I'm much more worried about one president or five Supreme Court justices running amok with the Constitution than I am with three hundred fifty-eight senators and representatives agreeing to act in concert against our interests.

Re: Should Congress be able to override the Presidential Veto?

[richardf8]

Well, the fact that the proposal would require a supermajority in both houses to override a supreme court ruling is something of a small comfort.

However, the language with which this bill has been introduced, and the reasons given for its introduction strike me as being designed to find a way to sacrifice individual freedoms protected by the courts on the altar of the tyranny of the majority.