On Courts Supreme.

[jsbowden]

So...if I order a Supreme Court, that comes with lettuce, tomato, and sour cream, right?

Either way, kate_nepveu posted a link to a poll by another lawyer type which is related to a meme that's also making the rounds:

As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Now, I'm not going to do the meme as it's written, I just wanted a jumping off point to rant about something that's bugging me.

The original bailout Paulson asked for was a seven hundred billion dollar blank check that had verbiage in it that excluded it from oversight or review by the courts or congress.

Okay, congress excluding themselves, while stupid, is within their power.

My real question here though, is where the fuck do they get off telling the Judiciary that it's not allowed to review the law? Last time I read the Constitution, the Judiciary was an equal and independent branch and congress had no right to tell it what cases it can and can't hear.

How the fuck exactly do they justify this hubris, and more importantly, why the fuck does the Judiciary put up with it?

If one of you lawyer types can explain this to me, well, I'll still think it's complete and total bullshit, but I might be a little less likely to get incoherent and stop seeing red every time it comes up.

Comments

[prince-corwin.livejournal.com]

I suspect you're right. I have no idea if it has ever been tested, though, and if not, that leaves open a certain ambiguity. Even if not tested, I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would rule against it.

But, anyone who reads the Second Amendment knows perfectly well that James Madison had some really strange ideas about commas. And I know A3S2 has been getting a workout, lately-- the Marriage Protection Act bill invokes it as follows:

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.

It also features in the Akins' Pledge Defense bill, and by inference in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. For that matter doesn't the REAL ID act do essentially the same thing for the Secretary of Homeland Defense, regarding roads and barriers in a few locations?

This probably all depends on the working mechanics of the court system, but it seems like these provisions either ban all judicial review, or they essentially require that only the Supreme Court has any review authority whatsoever.

Don't think that I approve of this. I'm just saying, the A3S2 clause has been seeing a lot of use in the last ten years, and that activity has been leading up to something like this.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.

Hm. And given that this isn't about ministers/consuls/etc or (necessarily) states as parties...but I have to assume that the Supreme Court can claim original jurisdiction to review any law for constitutionality...

But yeah, it smacks of Congress overstepping its bounds. And like I said, my prof suggests the Court wouldn't stand for that for very long...