Comments on: Term-Limit Justices, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:12:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Clay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60317 Clay Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:37:42 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60317 What are you talking about? Are you still trying to posit that judicial term limits would somehow tip the scales in Congress' favor? Remember that both Congress and the justices in this proposal would be under the scope of "the people" for their actions. Not a bad idea at all. What are you talking about? Are you still trying to posit that judicial term limits would somehow tip the scales in Congress’ favor?

Remember that both Congress and the justices in this proposal would be under the scope of “the people” for their actions. Not a bad idea at all.

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60318 Jeff Molby Thu, 21 Dec 2006 06:08:52 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60318 <blockquote>it would still be as difficult as any amendment</blockquote> How do you figure? 2/3 is significantly less than 3/4, never mind the fact that they wouldn't have to go through that messy ratification process.

it would still be as difficult as any amendment

How do you figure? 2/3 is significantly less than 3/4, never mind the fact that they wouldn’t have to go through that messy ratification process.

]]> By: Clay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60319 Clay Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:24:04 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60319 But it would still be as difficult as any amendment, and would restore checks and balances that activist judges who have legislated (not their lane in the road) from the bench have upset. In this day and age we need protection from these judges who want to impose their views on our nation, and sometimes even consult world opinion and precedence. Term limits would help make this illegal judicial action a more difficult proposition to carry out and the congressional veto would help to ensure that their day of legislating from the bench is over once and for all. I am for that 100 percent. But it would still be as difficult as any amendment, and would restore checks and balances that activist judges who have legislated (not their lane in the road) from the bench have upset.

In this day and age we need protection from these judges who want to impose their views on our nation, and sometimes even consult world opinion and precedence. Term limits would help make this illegal judicial action a more difficult proposition to carry out and the congressional veto would help to ensure that their day of legislating from the bench is over once and for all.

I am for that 100 percent.

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60320 Jeff Molby Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:56:15 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60320 <blockquote>I fail to see where setting term limits on justices would create any back door for passing amendments.</blockquote> They wouldn't. Term limits are a separate issue that I don't oppose. See comments 3 and 5. The "back door" comes from the "congressional veto." It would give them the ability to weigh in on a constitutional matter with a 2/3 vote that would effectively alter the constitution. Currently they require a 3/4 vote plus subsequent ratification by 3/4 of the states in order to alter the constitution. Thus the "congressional veto" would lower the bar substantially.

I fail to see where setting term limits on justices would create any back door for passing amendments.

They wouldn’t. Term limits are a separate issue that I don’t oppose. See comments 3 and 5.

The “back door” comes from the “congressional veto.” It would give them the ability to weigh in on a constitutional matter with a 2/3 vote that would effectively alter the constitution. Currently they require a 3/4 vote plus subsequent ratification by 3/4 of the states in order to alter the constitution. Thus the “congressional veto” would lower the bar substantially.

]]> By: Clay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60321 Clay Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:34:13 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60321 Jeff, I fail to see where setting term limits on justices would create any back door for passing amendments. They would remain needing a two thirds referendum. Jeff,

I fail to see where setting term limits on justices would create any back door for passing amendments. They would remain needing a two thirds referendum.

]]> By: Right on the Right &#187; The Dangers of Changing the Equation http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60322 Right on the Right &#187; The Dangers of Changing the Equation Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:08:29 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60322 [...] An interesting online debate has begun, Stop the ACLU leading the charge. People are talking about the dangers of the judiciary, and how activist judges are changing the equation of Constitutional Balance. This editorial from Mark Levin sparked the debate, and I have some thoughts my Conservative allies may not agree with… [...] [...] An interesting online debate has begun, Stop the ACLU leading the charge. People are talking about the dangers of the judiciary, and how activist judges are changing the equation of Constitutional Balance. This editorial from Mark Levin sparked the debate, and I have some thoughts my Conservative allies may not agree with&#8230; [...]

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60323 Jay Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:34:02 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60323 The bench is already politicized and what we view as non-activist judges, the left fight tooth and nail as "right wing" judges that they think will "set back the clock" on civil liberties, etc... They fear non-activist judges will jeapordize the 'advances' they have made with activist judges. I don't think it could get any more politicized than it already is. The bench is already politicized and what we view as non-activist judges, the left fight tooth and nail as “right wing” judges that they think will “set back the clock” on civil liberties, etc… They fear non-activist judges will jeapordize the ‘advances’ they have made with activist judges. I don’t think it could get any more politicized than it already is.

]]> By: PrivatePigg http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60324 PrivatePigg Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:59:56 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60324 Well, putting term limits on judges would directly convene Article III. If we complain about justices contravening the Constitution, it doesn't make sense to contravene the Constitution in order to "fix" the problem. It would just politicize the bench, anyway. We need to get people to understand the harm in legislating from the bench and we need them to elect people who will appoint non-activist judges. A Congressional Veto of the Supreme Court would be a huge separation of powers problem. One of the Supreme Court's biggest jobs is to invalidate Congressional legislation that is unconstitutional. What good would that do if Congress could veto their ruling? Well, putting term limits on judges would directly convene Article III. If we complain about justices contravening the Constitution, it doesn’t make sense to contravene the Constitution in order to “fix” the problem. It would just politicize the bench, anyway. We need to get people to understand the harm in legislating from the bench and we need them to elect people who will appoint non-activist judges.

A Congressional Veto of the Supreme Court would be a huge separation of powers problem. One of the Supreme Court’s biggest jobs is to invalidate Congressional legislation that is unconstitutional. What good would that do if Congress could veto their ruling?

]]> By: loboinok http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60325 loboinok Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:16:23 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60325 Furthermore, the Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress - a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers , which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares: The legislative authority necessarily predominates. Federalist #78 then proclaims: The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. Also, Federalist #49 declares that Congress - not the Court - is “the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature - not the unelected judiciary - is closest to the people and most responsive to them. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers , which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

Federalist #78 then proclaims:

The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

Also, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them.

]]> By: loboinok http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/comment-page-1/#comment-60326 loboinok Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:09:40 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/12/18/term-limit-justices-let-congress-veto-court-rulings/#comment-60326 <i>No, they only said congress didn’t have the authority to apply it to the states.</i> <b>Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</b> It was the "Religious Freedom <b>Restoration</b> Act"...<i>That Congressional act <b>re-instituted</b> protection...</i> No, they only said congress didn’t have the authority to apply it to the states.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It was the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”…That Congressional act re-instituted protection…

]]>