Poll: Do you respect the Supreme Court?

I absolutely respect SCOTUS, as I do all three branches of government. I don't always agree with them, and often do not, but I still respect them highly.

It's easy to disrespect from afar. In fact, it's part of our sinful nature to disrespect authority. Armchair politics is a good example. Why would I fall prey to sinful nature?

 

How can I respect an institution that by the stroke of the pen caused the murder of more than 40,000,000 unborn children?

 

I respect the SCOTUS as one of the three branches of government, but I don't approve of or respect all of their actions. In fact I think most of them need to take a lesson on Constitutional law, as do the majority in Congress and those in the Whitehouse.

We can respect the positions in Washington, and still disagree with the people who hold those positions. Like respecting the office of the POTUS, but not agreeing with the policies of the person who may hold that office.

 

Jonathan, you took my words!!!

I respect the Supreme Court, but I do not respect the decisions and beliefs of about half of the current members.

 

I had to choose other. I respect them as an institution because I believe the Constitution does give them final authority to pass on the Constitutionality of legislation. I don't respect what they have done with that power and how, using Play-Doh definitions of Constitutionality, they have twisted much of popular understanding of the Constitution. They haven't twisted the Constitution itself, though--it is what it is and says what it says.

 

But how much of that authority comes from the constitution and how much comes from Marbury vs Madison. Forgive me if I misspelled that. You have not been around much, how is the romance going?

 

You up for a while? On the phone with her now, Thanks for asking,

 

Probably up for a while. But don't trouble yourself, I can wait, don't want to get in the way of true love

 

I think that authority comes from the Constitution, (1) in deciding cases "arising under the Constitution" and (2) as elaborated on by Hamilton in Federalist 78.

 

Ok, so what was Marbury vs Madison about?

 

Robert Lowry Clinton, though, in Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, set out an interesting theory, that the decision in M v. M was about giving SCOTUS judicial review and final authority only in cases touching separation of powers issues between the judiciary and the other branches. He makes a strong historical case, based on subsequent decisions for the first several decades afterward, but to me Hamilton's argument in the Federalist is more definitive as to the Founders' intent.

 

You last me. I am not as accomplished in my Legal Sholarship as you are. In a nut shell, what power did the court give itself in Marbury and Madison? I understand that they gave themsleves the power to strike down a law, is that correct?

 

Oh, I don't know about legal scholarship but I am very interested in Supreme Court decisions and, therefore, the power of judicial review. My favorite undergrad Poli Sci professor was my Con Law instructor who was also very conservative. Sitting in the first class, he told us how Supreme Court sessions begin with "God save the United States and this honorable court." Being a smart aleck college student and not a big fan even then of what the Court had wrought (just a few years after Roe v. Wade, for example), I piped up, "God save the United States from this honorable court." Dr. Davis told me years later that he has repeated that line ever since.

 

But to answer your question, yes, they "gave themselves" that very power. I would argue that they didn't give themselves that power, that that is precisely what Hamilton said in Federalist 78 the Constitution gave them, the power to decide a law unconstitutional and therefore void.

 

And your legacy lives on! LOL

 

People are mis-taught in the law schools today that Marbury vs. Madison established the principle that the Supreme Court can overturn the Constitution. Not true. If you read Marbury vs. Madison, you find that Chief Justice Marshall simply ruled that a particular decision was void because it was beyond the Constitutional authority of Congress. It was not un-Constitutional; it was not among the delegated and enumerated powers. That is a very, very important distinction.

Source: http://www.academia.org/lectures/phillips1.html

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." --Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government." --Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

 

So you think that Marbury vs Madison just confermied a power they already possessed?

Why was Madison so willing to give them so much power, and Jefferson feared them. Ultimately, they will become an oligarchy, just as Jefferson predicted.