Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: A Burning Question

Friday, November 02, 2012

A Burning Question

TODAY'S QUIZ
ROGUE GOVERNMENT

Here's today's quiz (to which I have no answer).

Our constitution famously created three co-equal branches of government, the better to keep one rogue branch from taking over. I can cite numerous cases where the legislative branch have trumped an executive branch action, and vice-versa, but for the life of me, I cannot think of a single case where the judicial branch has been quashed . Can you? If not, what does that mean (I can answer that).

Rodger the Real King of France 11/02/2012 09:55:00 AM 17 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton

17 comments:

Jess said...: I think it means nobody ever had the balls to eliminate their funds and watch them squirm. That and too many damned attorneys are involved.; 11/2/12, 9:57 AM
Amigo said...: The only example that comes close that I can think of is Andrew Jackson ignoring Marshall's opinion in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. Jackson is supposed to have said "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it". The Cherokee got moved to Oklahoma.; 11/2/12, 10:16 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: Sadly "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" appears to be legend over fact.; 11/2/12, 10:35 AM
Helly said...: It means you have failed to recognize the genius of The Founders and are working off a false proposition: The judiciary is the superior branch.

The Founders had enough humility to understand their government was inspired by God, but not a manifestation of Divinity. Among mortal men, there must be differences and fallibility.

They also understood it was far more important these differences be resolved than balanced, so the country would not be permanently mired in conflict and mistakes. And that those resolutions would best reflect the longest possible time-weighted sentiment of the nation.

So rather than entrust that great power to a single man or congress driven by the mob passion of the moment, they gave us a committee. The jurists are chosen by the broadest possible approval of the nation, and then permanently insulated from their condemnation.

It means we are ruled by the Court, and our prosperity is a validation of that rule.; 11/2/12, 10:36 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: You have presented, I think, presumption as fact Helly. A better presumption would be that any nation so lacking in character that they needs to be controlled by overseers have failed the first test of a democracy-and are in fact not one.

Clean the erasers, and bring me some coffee.; 11/2/12, 11:03 AM
Kristophr said...: Amigo: And since then, Cherokee have been using that SCOTUS decision as the basis to seize land from government organizations all over the south. During the Bush admin, the chief justice told the lawyers hired by these governments to just settle fast, that they would not enjoy the SCOTUS decision that was about to drop on them.

Jackson's unlawful act is still having consequences today.

Something to keep in mind ... a lot of the crap the President's minions are pulling now do not have short statutes of limitation.; 11/2/12, 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Helly - I don't think the Founders envisioned the SCOTUS as final arbiters, and the onstitution did not explicitly give that power to the Court. John Marshall seized that in Marbury v. Madison 1803.

AFAIK, the Congress has never exercised the power it has to limit SCOTUS jurisdiction:
Article 2 .... 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.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick; 11/2/12, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Wonder what the Barn Army lead JAG officer, Chuck Martel has to say about this.

thoR~; 11/2/12, 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Whatever it was that they intended (real or imagined), what we HAVE doesn't bear any resemblance to it. We're hosed. Hard history coming folks. Who is John Galt?; 11/2/12, 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I cannot think of one case, either.

However, Under the "leadership", (or lack thereof), of the Komrade Liar-in-Chief, the three branches of government, Justice, Legislative, and Executive, have been changed to No Justice, Very Little, if any, Legislation, and, last but not least, the Excrement branch.

Scottiebill; 11/2/12, 2:44 PM
Helly said...: any nation so lacking in character that they needs to be controlled by overseers have failed the first test of a democracy

That's hilarious, Rodger. Thousands of years ago, Romans gave us a perfect little rhyme to refute such a fantasy about human character — bovi non jovi.

And your 2nd false proposition is even worse than the 1st. The Founders well understood the horrors of democracy. Which is why they proscribed it; instead blessing us with a republic. Democracy is the polite name for communism, which is an elegant name for poverty.

Moral: The devil you know is better than the one you wish for. If you really crave the Libertarian life, we have a garden spot for you in Vermont. It's a square mile of government-free land called Earth People's Park. Find a place you like, shoot the current occupants, and move right in. No bothers with taxes, pesky police, or electric bills. Just bring plenty of ammo and try not to fall asleep.; 11/2/12, 3:29 PM
dodgeman said...: It means that congress has abdicated their authority and since then let the court rule. That way they can vote "present" on all controversial issues, then allow the liberal court to push the liberal agenda. Then when re-election roles around, they can with good conscience promise to abide by the law of the land, namely whatever the supremes decide.; 11/2/12, 5:34 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: Ha! I hear fingernails scratching from inside a balloon. Is that you trying to get out Helly?   As to your sidetrack—yes, I know we are (supposed to be ) a republic. But, consider:

          In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

           In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to maller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

Are we then? A republic? Still?

All this is moot when considering my original question. When have the branches of government smacked down the black robes? What is our recourse to the judgeocracy we now live under? Were the founders too dumb to consider the threat? Or have their words and intentions been twisted?

Two more weeks of eraser cleaning 4 you, I'm afraid.; 11/2/12, 10:02 PM
Helly said...: But, consider:…

Putcher glasses on and keep reading until you get to the words, "It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom."

Are we then? A republic? Still?

Yes. Democracy never. Next question.

When have the branches of government smacked down the black robes?

By "smacked," do you mean "borked?" If senators are too gentile to aggressively spotlight and obstruct the commie nominations, then shame on us for not voting them out. That is why I got right on board the Tea Party.

What is our recourse to the judgeocracy we now live under?

1. Pick better judges. 2. Time. Without exception, every judge dies; even Thurgood Marshall. I saw his grave in Arlington. 3. Pick better judges. 4. Time. Every judge dies. 5. Pick better judges.

You see, this is a problem you share with Nancy Pelosi: Both of you feel representatives of the opposition are illegitimate and dispensable. Looters are people too, yanno. Our recourse is free speech, which makes you da man. (And why I have your back.)

Were the founders too dumb to consider the threat?

They were smart enough to stop FDR from subverting the SCOTUS. Smart enough to give us justice in a generational timeframe instead of a mob timeframe. IOW, genius.

Or have their words and intentions been twisted?

I've been 'round the shire, Rodge. That's not my 1st false dichotomy. This is Earth, where even the best things get twisty. Heaven's perfection comes soon enough. You want Hope and Change and Quick. The Founders denied this to you, so it could be denied to Harry Reid.

Fun. Let's do this again soon.; 11/3/12, 12:55 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: I win; 11/3/12, 9:11 AM
Helly said...: Winning is your job. My job is letting you.

— buffs nails —; 11/3/12, 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Does a president defying a Chief Justice count?

Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus and then ignored a writ issued by Chief Justice Taney. Taney was acting solely in the role of a federal circuit judge in Ex parte Merryman. The entire court did not get involved in the case until after Lincoln's death. It is now accepted as precedent that habeas corpus can only be suspended by Congress which means Lincoln actions were not upheld by the Court.

Freddie Sykes; 11/3/12, 6:19 PM

Friday, November 02, 2012

A Burning Question

17 comments:

Post a Comment