OT Packing the court.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview Tuesday that she does not favor proposals put forth by some Democratic presidential candidates who have advocated changing the number of Supreme Court justices if the Democrats win the presidency."

""I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.""

Aren't we lucky that we have a president who exercises restraint? It's not like he'd be willing to take an idea from the Democratic playbook and put it into action for his own purposes. Countdown to Dems calling packing the court a bad idea begins... now.

[David Amicus]

I like the Supreme Court that the CSA had! ;-)))

[jack]

David, sympathy for your health conditions has now run out. Back to racist trolling.

[David Amicus]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 3:32:23 PM UTC-7, jack wrote:
> David, sympathy for your health conditions has now run out. Back to racist trolling.

What was racist about what I posted?

The CSA Constitution made provision for a Supreme Court but no Justices were ever appointed.

[Martin Edwards]

Sorry, I don't know about that, and I have seen a lot of tv about the
period.

[Martin Edwards]

Thanks for the update. Your point may not have been racist, but
precisely what was the point of it?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
"The Confederate Constitution outlined a judicial branch of the government, but the ongoing war and resistance from states-rights advocates, particularly on the question of whether it would have appellate jurisdiction over the state courts, prevented the creation or seating of the "Supreme Court of the Confederate States;""

Sooner or later they would've all seceded.

[jack]

The Confederacy seceded precisely so as to continue slavery and the institutional racism that gave it its legal foundation. Any posting ‘liking’ parts of that framework is no different than liking the racism it was based on. But then the poster thinks military empires are just dandy.

[David Amicus]

Just "what if" there had not been a US Supreme Court? No Marbury vs Madison etc.. Would the country have been better off?

[jack]

It would have a different country constitutionally. Where would your judiciary be? All countries have one?

[David Amicus]

But in some countries I think their version of the Supreme Court can not judge the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature.

[jack]

That may be so. I have no idea what you mean by a US w/o an independent judiciary being “better off”. How so?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 6:50:57 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> The Confederacy seceded precisely so as to continue slavery and the institutional racism that gave it its legal foundation. Any posting ‘liking’ parts of that framework is no different than liking the racism it was based on.

That's a pretty broad statement. AFAIK the CSA's constitution had three branches of government and so does the COTUS. I think that's a pretty good idea. Does that make me racist? Or does it make me worse than a racist?

> But then the poster thinks military empires are just dandy.

I'm not sure which poster you meant, but military empires as opposed to what?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Why do you think that's a good idea? What do you think is the reason for having a constitution?

[jack]

“That's a pretty broad statement. AFAIK the CSA's constitution had three branches of government and so does the COTUS. I think that's a pretty good idea. Does that make me racist? Or does it make me worse than a racist? ”

Secession and the constitution set up for it was based solely on protecting slavery, as has been noted many times on this list.

As to your second sentence, just another attempt to put down an argument thru ad hominem statements.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 5:46:43 PM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> “That's a pretty broad statement. AFAIK the CSA's constitution had three branches of government and so does the COTUS. I think that's a pretty good idea. Does that make me racist? Or does it make me worse than a racist? ”
>
> Secession and the constitution set up for it was based solely on protecting slavery, as has been noted many times on this list.

Except that you wrote, "The Confederacy seceded precisely so as to continue slavery and the institutional racism that gave it its legal foundation. Any posting ‘liking’ parts of that framework is no different than liking the racism it was based on."

I think you ought to narrow your condemnation of the CSA and it's form of government to the things that are bad and accept that it might have had some good things too.

>
> As to your second sentence, just another attempt to put down an argument thru ad hominem statements.

Although I actually intended that to be humourous, I'm curious to know who you think those ad hominems are against?

[David Amicus]

What was the original intent our FF had for the Supreme Court? Wasn't Marbury a usurpation by Marshall?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-article-iii-

Article III, Section 1, says in part.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..."

Article III, Section 2, says in part:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ..."

Article VI reads in part:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


The phrase "the Laws of the US which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" suggests that the law of the US must conform to the COTUS. In consequence of the, the judiciary may judge laws to see if they conform to the COTUS. IMNSHO, Marbury is not a usurpation but the flowering of the COTUS.

It's still not clear to me what point there is in having a constitution if the legislative body (and presumably the other two *equal* branches of government) may override it at will. And if there is no point to a constitution then there is not a government. I think Blackstone said that the King (or for our purposes the sovereign) is subject to the law, because the without the law there is no King and the law is therefore the Kings whole patrimony.

If my reading is correct Article VI of the COTCSA is different and I wonder even more what point there is in a constitution that can be overturned by the government that it creates.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp#a6


But perhaps this might make you happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Criticism

I think that you've posted before about why you think it would be a good idea not to have a supreme court, or not to allow the court to decide if laws are constitutional or not, but I don't think you've ever said why you think this would be a good idea. Why do you want things to be so?

[David Amicus]

Thanks for the links.

Often the judges seem to vote based upon their personal pov rather than what the Constitution says. I am a strict constructionist. The Constitution can be amended; don't "pervert" it.

Doesn't Congress have the right to restrict the Court's purview?

[Martin Edwards]

The governor of Georgia had already threatened to do so.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

If we were perfect a constitution would be superfluous. As we aren't perfect we should not expect the judges who rule on the COTUS to be perfect either.

Also, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.

> Doesn't Congress have the right to restrict the Court's purview?

There is a right to amend the COTUS and restrict the Court's purview in various ways. The 11th Amendment is meant to do that. You can always try to get an Amendment passed that allows Congress to pass laws that the courts can't overturn. Or change the text so that laws passed by Congress have the same standing as the Constitution. But good luck with that, since I suspect not many people would think that's a good idea.

Why would you want to do that? What advantage do you see to doing that? What would make you think it's a good idea?

If you're concerned about the politics of the Justices then why are you less concerned about the politics of Congress, who would, presumably, pass laws that couldn't be reviewed.

Nor is it clear to me what you mean by 'perverting' the COTUS. Many people have different ideas about what that would be. And it's not clear to me why amending the COTUS is necessarily different from perverting it. Some people think a flag burning amendment would be a good idea, some do not. Some people think A13 and A14 are wonderful, some do not and some think that A14 doesn't grant birthright citizenship unless you are a former slave or descendant of slaves. I think what you're complaining about is by it's nature subjective.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

I sorta wish that had happened. It would have been epic to watch the Confederacy go down that way. Which isn't to say that it didn't. I've read, no cite, that it was almost impossible for their central government to get the resources they needed to win the war since each state tended to hoard its own and wasn't willing to share in The Cause. Massive fail.