If I Were A Supreme Court Justice or Law Clerk....

I would be making certain that I was reading every case ever decided in the past 50 years dealing with political party rules and the primary/caucus system, the assignment of delegates and rules regarding private behavior. Here is the reason why:

Let's assume that tomorrow does not resolve the nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because the two split the results in Texas and Ohio (a likely scenario). That means that neither candidate will likely be in a position to claim a majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination and the superdelegate vote may be split to the point that their contributions may not be enough to decide the issue one way or another. So what will happen next is the apparently inevitable--court action.

The most likely instigator of these legal proceedings will be Hillary Clinton, who will sue to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated and recognized. Since she was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan, she would have a de facto win there despite the complete unfairness of it all to Obama and the other candidates who followed the party rules. While Obama was on the ballot in Florida (I think) neither candidate really campaigned there, although Clinton went in on the day of the Florida primary after the polls had largely closed.

Clinton was the clear winner in those states, but because of party rules, the Democratic National Committee said that the delegates in those states would not be recognized if apportioned according to the Michigan and Florida primaries. The voters in those states were disenfranchised by their state legislatures and state parties who acted in defiance of party rules. The Democratic Party said that Michigan and Florida could not have their primaries before February 1. In the rush for "relevance," these two states ended up violating those rules.

So now we are in a position where Hillary Clinton, now desperate to win, will sue the DNC, whose rules she violated by remaining on the Michigan ballot, to have the DNC recognize her one-sided victories and thus hand her the nomination. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that there is no question in the public sphere that doesn't become a judicial question and the Democratic nomination is just the next in a long line of such public issues.

The questions that will be presented to the Court are interesting to say the least. Technically, the Democratic Party is a private entity that would, under normal circumstances, be allowed to make its own rules regarding the behavior of its subsidiaries. Those rules can, so long as they are not overtly discriminatory of protected classes, punish subsidiary organizations that don't follow the rules. When dealing with internal sanctions, can a party not recognize the delegates of a state that defied party rules? But is the DNC truly a "private entity?" If not, what kind of entity is it? It is not a public institution? Assuming the DNC is still a private entity, the question gets a little more complicated because primaries/caucuses are public events with a voting rights overtone. Will that activity and the voting rights of individuals trump the private nature of the rules of a private entity? Are primaries/caucuses merely internal voting mechanisms choosing internal party designees? What about the states with open primaries (I don't know if Michgain or Florida have an open primary)? What about the role of the state legislatures who may have approved the move to a date prior to a party's cut-off date? Does that legislative mandate over ride the national party rules? Does Michigan or Florida have the right to tell a national organization how to run its internal affairs? Does the fact that primaries are operated using state provided officials, facilities and instruments (the voting machines themselves) affect that private/public nature of the primaries? Assuming the Court can resolve those questions, can the court force the the party to recognize a slate of delegates from the state? Can the Court leave it to the DNC to make that determination? If not, how do they choose given that for all intents and purposes one candidate followed party rules and didn't campaign in the dissident states and the other did, reaping the post hoc benefit of defying party rules?

What will be interesting is that in order to resolve the dispute is the timing as we are looking at a very short timetable to resolve any legal dispute. The Supreme Court will be called upon to hear a case in the summer, after the traditional close of the Court's term in June. Let's assume that a case is filed in the week or so after the end of the Pennsylvania primary in April. That means a trial at the federal district court level would have to be expedited, perhaps to late May or early June. An appeal would occur in early to mid-July, with an appeal to the Supreme Court in late July to early August--all to get an answer prior to the Democratic Convention set to open on August 25.

The irony is so thick you can't even cut it with a high powered laser. Nearly 8 years after a "stealing" of the presidency by the Supreme Court, the Court (which more than a few Democrats questioned the legitimacy of) will be asked by the very same political party that felt it was aggrieved by the Supreme Court in 2000 to decide a case about that party's nominee for the presidency, not its candidate--its nominee.

The decision could leave a majority of Democratic voters angry (again) at the Court and Hillary Clinton (assuming she prevails) for denying the majority of voters once again.

Posted by Matt Johnston at March 3, 2008 4:58 PM
Comments
Comment #246984

Matt,
You posit a far-fetched scenario and conclude voters will be mad at Hillary Clinton.

There are so many what if’s, it is hard to know where to start.

Here’s a more likely scenario: What if John McCain unexpectedly drops dead of a heart attack? Will Huckabee demand the Supreme Court make him the Republican nominee? It’s unlikely, sure, and it’s pretty awful to even think about it, but it’s about as likely than Hillary going to the Supreme Court to have her installed as the Democratic nominee. I mean, come on.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #246987

After what I’ve seen from the Democrat Party sense 2000 I wouldn’t put anything past them or their candidates. But I don’t know if the courts will be involved in choosing their candidates. Most likely not.
But one thing is for sure. The Democratic Convention is liable to get pretty lively this year.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 3, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #246992

Don’t forget:

http://www.recreate68.org/

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #247020

I keep looking back to a statement atributed to Will Rogers: “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat”. If the stakes ween’t so high, I could get a lot of laughs from watching Hillary and Barak go at each other. It may be that the Democrats, who have the best shot at the White House, and maybe Congress, in 8 years, will shoot themselves in the foot again and we will be stuck with another 4 years of Republicans. But, on the bright side, the “progressive” talk shows won’t have GWB to kick around any more.

Posted by: Old Grouch at March 3, 2008 11:04 PM
Comment #247027

Matt Johnston,

I find your Supreme Court scenario pretty far-fetched.

For one thing, my understanding is that there is very little precedent for the courts being involved in how primaries operate, except in cases of outright discrimination. Considering the criticism the SCOTUS got after Bush vs. Gore, I doubt they are going to wade into this one when they don’t really have a dog in the in the fight.

Secondly, I sense a widespread feeling that most Democrats find both candidates acceptable and want a peaceful resolution that leaves the party intact. My hunch is that if Clinton did something that threatened to the throw the party into turmoil, the superdelegates would rally to Obama (and vice versa if Clinton were ahead).

I have been following the Florida situation closely, and I can tell you that Obama was on the ballot. (I voted for him). If the race is close enough for Florida to matter, I think the best thing would be to have another primary. Gov. Crist has endorsed this solution. This is even more appropriate for Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot. For Clinton to argue that the vote in Michigan to stand is ludicrous.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 4, 2008 8:22 AM
Comment #247033

The Supreme Court is increasingly a sad joke, when you consider the growing number of constitutional violations, and the Supreme Court’s complicity and standard “Catch-22” tactic to ignore the violations:

  • “no standing”

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #247042

d.a.n. please, you call the supreme court a sad joke because it’s not ruling in favor of liberal positions. There have been decisions by the court that I, as a conservative, don’t agree with but I certainly don’t call those decisions a sad joke, merely the reflection of the people appointed to the bench by the then existing president, and approved by the then existing senate members. Whine and bitch, complain and obfuscate, but we have the court the majority of Americans wanted by virtue of their elected representatives.

Liberals, it seems to me, always use the courts as their last desparate refuge of failed ideas. What liberals fail to win at the ballot box they attempt to achieve by judicial fiat. Hardly a principled constitutional position.

Posted by: Jim M at March 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #247045
Whine and bitch, complain and obfuscate, but we have the court the majority of Americans wanted by virtue of their elected representatives…What liberals fail to win at the ballot box they attempt to achieve by judicial fiat. Hardly a principled constitutional position.


So are you arguing against yourself, or just arguing for the sake of argument.

Normally Rhinehold or Jack make comments about the definition of majority, so I point you to their previous comments on what it means. But either you agree that we have a Court that was legally appointed; therefore we abide by their decisions as they were empowered to do in our Constitution. Or you disagree with our Constitution and the third branch of government should be ignored? Either way, you can’t have both.

Posted by: Cube at March 4, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #247048

I agree though, there are times when those of us interested in personal liberty and defending the minority against the majority must unfortunately go to the court to achieve. Like defense against discrimination in regards to marriage laws, privacy laws in regards to spying and reproduction, private property rights in regards to kehlo (ooo’er wait a sec…)

Well, for the most part that is how it works at least. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #247049
The voters in those states were disenfranchised by their state legislatures and state parties who acted in defiance of party rules.

Were the voters disenfranchised by their state parties and legislatures or by the national party?

It’s an interesting conundrum, isn’t it? Though, the word ‘disenfranchisement’ is not exactly accurate, there is nothing requiring that people vote for who will be the candidate of the party, the Libertarians and Green party do not go through this somewhat idiotic primary process and do so legally…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #247052

Why do we have to have so many articles about the dem’s on the red side? Is it because of the fact that the Rep’s policies have led to a 7.5% inflation in wholesale prices in the last 12 months? How long can this level of inflation be kept from the consumer? I have a feeling that we are at the end, and prices on everything are going to go up! But don’t expect you wages to go up. It looks like the begening of stagflation to me. Gas prices are up 100% in 7 years, that leads to higher prices for everything else. Health care prices are insanely high, if you don’t think so look at my families $850,000 in medical bills in the last 12 months. I would be bankrupt without SSI and Medicade for my girls, and that is only trying to cover the $35,000 in my portion of the bills.
Don’t get very ill or your toast expecially with the new bankruptsy laws! Thanks again R’s!

Posted by: timesend at March 4, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #247054
Why do we have to have so many articles about the dem’s on the red side

I would guess for the same reason there are so many articles about the rep’s on the blue side and about the dem’s and rep’s in the middle column…

BTW, How does implementing a huge unfunded boondoggle (please look up the generation of that word) solve our problems?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #247057
Jim M wrote: d.a.n. please, you call the supreme court a sad joke because it’s not ruling in favor of liberal positions.
False.

I call it a joke for violating the Constitution.
There’s a big difference.
Or, are you saying it is OK for the government and Supreme Court to violate the U.S. Constitution?

Jim M wrote: There have been decisions by the court that I, as a conservative, don’t agree with but I certainly don’t call those decisions a sad joke,
Perhaps you should consider it.

Or, are you saying it is OK for the government and Supreme Court to violate the U.S. Constitution?

Jim M wrote: … merely the reflection of the people appointed to the bench by the then existing president, and approved by the then existing senate members.
That is true.

The voters are culpable too, for tolerating the gradual chipping away at the Constitution. Hell, most Americans can’t even tell you what the 1st or 2nd Amendment, or Article 4, or Article 5 are about, much less that they are being violated.

Jim M wrote:
Whine and bitch, complain and obfuscate, but we have the court the majority of Americans wanted by virtue of their elected representatives.

Nonsense.

Not mere whining and bitching. I work for change, donate money, time, skills, and other resources to many organizations working to end these abuses.

As for whining and bitching, the same could be said for those that have such disdain for people they perceive as liberals.

Jim M wrote: Liberals, it seems to me, always use the courts as their last desparate refuge of failed ideas. What liberals fail to win at the ballot box they attempt to achieve by judicial fiat. Hardly a principled constitutional position.
Jim M, I’m not a liberal.

I’m a Centrist with slight Libertarian leanings.
So, one has to wonder if you really know what is liberal.
But the use of such labels (liberal, neocon, etc.) are common fall-backs for some whose arguments are weak to start with.
Or, are you saying it is OK for the government and Supreme Court to violate the U.S. Constitution?
Just because the Supreme Catch-22 Court refuses to hear a case, or rules the wrong way, does not justify the violation of the Constitution.
Or, are you saying these things are not being violated?
Please feel free to provide your evidence, logic, and facts to make a counter-argument.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #247062
Timesend wrote: Why do we have to have so many articles about the dem’s on the red side? Is it because of the fact that the Rep’s policies have led to a 7.5% inflation in wholesale prices in the last 12 months? How long can this level of inflation be kept from the consumer? I have a feeling that we are at the end, and prices on everything are going to go up! But don’t expect you wages to go up. It looks like the begening of stagflation to me. Gas prices are up 100% in 7 years, that leads to higher prices for everything else. Health care prices are insanely high, if you don’t think so look at my families $850,000 in medical bills in the last 12 months. I would be bankrupt without SSI and Medicade for my girls, and that is only trying to cover the $35,000 in my portion of the bills. Don’t get very ill or your toast expecially with the new bankruptsy laws!
The problem are these abuses, which did not all come about by mere coincidence.

Those abuses also did not come about overnight; they have been cheating most Americans for over 30 years.
Healthcare costs are absolutely ridiculous.
Medicare fraud is rampant.
Perhaps healthcare would be more affordable if those other abuses are addressed?

By the way, you are right about inflation (and the falling U.S. Dollar).
Get ready for more inflation, due to massive debt.
The nation-wide debt is $48 Trillion (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm); about half of the nation’s total net worth.
QUESTION: WHERE will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on that $48 Trillion, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL debt of $48 Trillion (to keep it from growing larger and larger)?
The U.S. Dollar is falling against all major international currencies.
Gold is about $963 per ounce.
80% of the U.S. population owns less than 17% of the nation’s total wealth.
A mere 2% of the U.S. population owns most of the nation’s total wealth.
WHERE will the money come from, when most people owe on their homes, and have little equity?
WHERE will the money come from, when savings rates have been negative for many years?
WHERE will the money come from, when incomes have actually been falling since 1967 (especially when considering there are more workers per household, taxes are more regressive, more illegal immigration costing Americans an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses, incessant inflation since year 1956, growing wealth disparity since year 1976, etc.)?
ANSWER: The Federal Reserve and government will create more money out of thin air.

They have no choice.
They can not default on the debts.
The INTEREST on only the $9.2 Trillion National Debt is over $1 Billion per day.
That does not even include all federal government debt.
The Congress borrowed and spent (long ago) $12.8 Trillion from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching.
The U.S. is borrowing over $3 Billion per day.
Get ready for more inflation.

What do you think will be worth more 1 year from now than today?

  • (a) A U.S. Dollar?

  • (b) A EURO?

  • (c) A British Pound?

  • (d) A Canadian Dollar?

  • (e) A barrel of oil?

  • (f) An ounce of gold?
At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #247063

Matt, it does raise interesting questions and potential hypocrisies. But, I agree with a previous commenter, it is only a remotely plausible scenario. Democrats in leadership of the Party would work overtime to prevent such a scenario, some already are, like Howard Dean.

But, in the absence of the rise of a viable Independent Party, your scenario becomes more plausible down the road in 2012 or 2016, as the desperation level within the Democratic Party to hold onto gains of power intensify the Primary contests.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #247125

Tina and others comments were removed for derailing the topic of this article and comments.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 5, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #247130

What d.a.n and others fail to understand and call unconstitutional is actually quite simple. The U.S. Supreme Court is the body designated by our constitution to determine its meaning. Y’all can interpret your ideas about the constitution, as that is your right, but it is meaningless. This court is supreme and gets to make the call.

We get liberal judges when liberals get to choose judges and conversely conservative judges when conservatives get to choose. Bitch and moan about it and change it by getting your president and senators elected. Five out of nine judges may produce an opinion you don’t like and that’s just tough shit. They get to interpret the rules not you. There have been many decision by the SC that I don’t like and don’t believe followed the constitution and I try to change that at the ballot box by electing like-minded representatives.

Liberals on the other hand can’t get their reps elected and so attempt to sidestep the constitutional path and attempt to get their philosophy recognized by finding a lower court judge who for whatever reason agrees with them. The result is that one person, a judge, attempts to thwart the legislative process and it then takes the nine supreme judges to correct the errant judge and slap him/her down.

Fortunately for us (US) the SC isn’t swayed by public opinion and current thinking as they are sworn to a higher authority, the constitution. They don’t rule by polling or what the talking heads are saying and I thank God for that. We, as citizens have the opportunity to argue our position before the court and perhaps sway their thinking. Each of the nine bring their own experience, bias’s, attitudes, and position to the court which has been considered by the senate in its role to advise and consent. Our last two SC judges were subjected to a vigorous debate in the senate before the body gave their consent to the appointment. This is as it should be.

Legislators get to legislate and the SC gets to rule on its constitutionality…not you or some like-minded lower court judge. Unlike Obama, SC judges don’t stand for change and feel-good platitudes, they stand for the constitution under which we have all agreed, as citizens, to abide.

Posted by: Jim M at March 5, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #247137

Jim M,

What a steaming load…

Let me fix up your main misunderstanding. It *IS* the lower court justice’s job to interpret the constitution and apply it to cases that come before them. That is what all courts do. The Supreme Court is just the final arbitor of this, not the ONLY arbitor.

So your arguement falls flat in that even those ‘liberal judges’ you mention are doing what they are supposed to be doing, elected by those who voted for them and definately NOT trying to perform an end around the process. They *ARE* the process.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #247141
Jim M wrote: What d.a.n and others fail to understand and call unconstitutional is actually quite simple. The U.S. Supreme Court is the body designated by our constitution to determine its meaning.
False.

Laws are being violated.
Other laws have been violated in the past.
The Supreme Court has also reversed previous decisions.
The federal government is currently violating the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has been complicit in the past and today by vaious abuses, such as the “no standing” dodge.

Jim M wrote: Y’all can interpret your ideas about the constitution, as that is your right, but it is meaningless. This court is supreme and gets to make the call.
That does not mean their call will stand.

The Supreme Court can be challenged.
The text (such as Article V) of the Constitution plain and obvious, and supported by many other Supreme Court cases.

Jim M wrote: This [supreme] court is supreme and gets to make the call.
More nonsense.

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it trumps the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can not (not legally) violate the Constitution.
And if the Supreme Court decides wrong, the people can and will challenge violations of the Constitution (if necessary, all the way back to the Supreme Court).
And that is exactly what happens in many cases.
And sometimes, it results in a Supreme Court reversals.

Jim M wrote: This [supreme] court is supreme and gets to make the call.
That is essentially saying “since that is the way it is, it must be the way it should be”. However, just because the law is broken does not make it legal. Laws are broken all the time. By your logic, once the laws are broken, it’s all over. However, many violations of many laws and the Constitution have been over-turned in the past, and will be over-turned in the future. Thus, if it was as Jim M states (i.e. “meaningless”), no one would have ever challenged the violations to make the government obey the Constitution.
Jim M wrote: We get liberal judges when liberals get to choose judges and conversely conservative judges when conservatives get to choose.
Sometimes. So what? That still does not justify the violation of any law.
Jim M wrote: Bitch and moan about it and change it by getting your president and senators elected.
Some people will do more than bitch and moan.

Some will fight the violations in court.
That is their right.
And if they fail to make government obey the Constitution, then we are all the more worse off because of it.
Still, just because the law is violated, and the court(s) erroneously uphold violations (as in many eminent domain abuse cases), it does not make it right.
Legal plunder may be legal, but legal doesn’t always mean it is just, ethical, fair, and moral.

Jim M wrote: Five out of nine judges may produce an opinion you don’t like and that’s just tough shit. They get to interpret the rules not you.
It’s not always a matter of mere interpretation.

It is often flagrant violations of the Constitution (e.g. such as Article V, and these other violations).

Jim M wrote: There have been many decision by the SC that I don’t like and don’t believe followed the constitution and I try to change that at the ballot box by electing like-minded representatives.
Good for you. Others are do that too, and more. Or are you suggesting that people should be happy with violations of the law, and shut up? That’s not very American. Sieg Heil!
Jim M wrote: Liberals on the other hand can’t get their reps elected …
Uhhhmmmmm … just to update you on current events, but the Democrats (more liberal than Republicans) control the House, and may soon control the Senate and the Executive Branch.
Jim M wrote: … and so attempt to sidestep the constitutional path and attempt to get their philosophy recognized by finding a lower court judge who for whatever reason agrees with them.
So? If people, like you (i.e. Jim M wrote: There have been many decision by the SC that I don’t like and don’t believe followed the constitution … ) think the law has been violated, why not fight those violations? That is not a sidestep. That is due process. If it comes back to the Supreme Court, as it sometimes does, the Supreme Court may change their mind (as they have on occasion).
Jim M wrote: The result is that one person, a judge, attempts to thwart the legislative process and it then takes the nine supreme judges to correct the errant judge and slap him/her down.
That is not always what happens.

Sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong, and reverses previous decisions.

Jim M wrote: Fortunately for us (US) the SC isn’t swayed by public opinion and current thinking as they are sworn to a higher authority, the constitution. They don’t rule by polling or what the talking heads are saying and I thank God for that.
That statement is quite niave.

The Supreme Court is biased too, and you have already admitted such biases and manipulations when you wrote

Jim M wrote:
  • We get liberal judges when liberals get to choose judges and conversely conservative judges when conservatives get to choose.

  • Each of the nine bring their own experience, bias’s, attitudes, and position to the court
  • Jim M wrote: We, as citizens have the opportunity to argue our position before the court and perhaps sway their thinking.
    Exactly. So what’s your beef?
    Jim M wrote: Each of the nine bring their own experience, bias’s, attitudes, and position to the court which has been considered by the senate in its role to advise and consent. Our last two SC judges were subjected to a vigorous debate in the senate before the body gave their consent to the appointment. This is as it should be.
    That still does not justify the violation of the Constitution.
    Jim M wrote: Legislators get to legislate and the SC gets to rule on its constitutionality … not you or some like-minded lower court judge.
    In case you haven’t noticed, disputes start in lower courts, and often end up in higher courts, such as the Supreme Court.
    Jim M wrote: Unlike Obama, SC judges don’t stand for change and feel-good platitudes, …
    What does Barack Obama have to do with it?

    Supreme Court Justices are supposed to uphold the Constitution.
    In many cases, the Supreme Court has failed to do so (such as now).
    It’s not the first time and probably won’t be the last.

    Jim M wrote: … they [Supreme Court] stand for the constitution under which we have all agreed, as citizens, to abide.
    We agree to abide by the Constitution.

    Not the violations of the Constitution.
    If the Supreme Court always got it right, then how do you explain the reversal of so many laws (e.g. abortion, prohibition (liquor), income tax, etc.)?
    Again, just because the law is violated does not mean we should all accept it.

    Jim M wrote: … the constitution under which we have all agreed, as citizens, to abide.
    Yes, and that is why Americans should challenge violations of the Constitution.

    Or, are you saying violations have never occurred?
    And if they have, are you saying violations should never be challenged in court?
    The Supreme Court Justices are not gods.
    Also, liberals alone are the only people to challenge constitutional violations.
    Conservatives have challenged constitutional violations too.

    The weakness with your entire argument is that you think Constitutional violations can not be challenged.
    They can; and should be.
    And eventually, as more people learn of the violation, the more likely the violation will be reversed (as many have).

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 5:38 PM
    Comment #247144

    CORRECTION: Also, liberals alone are aren’t the only people to challenge constitutional violations.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 5:50 PM
    Comment #247146

    d.a.n. You accuse the supreme court of violating the constitution in some of their rulings. With your so-called majority they may choose to impeach. Hasn’t happened and as far as I know not even contemplated. Who’s out of step, you or your elected reps.

    Of course there have been changes in supreme court rulings. None of the justices live forever. Varying presidents nominate justices with viewpoints on the constitution that may vary in time. Does that make the judges who made the initial ruling, changed later by a different court, somehow in violation of the constitution? How silly. When congress makes changes in legislation that was enacted by a previous congress are they guilty of some crime? Of course not, it merely reflects current thinking by the currently elected members. Your arguments are thin, tired and non-sensible.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 5, 2008 6:20 PM
    Comment #247149
    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. You accuse the supreme court of violating the constitution in some of their rulings.
    That’s right.

    Congress and the Supreme Court are violating the Constitution now. And they have violated it in the past (a fact you concede).

    Jim M wrote: With your so-called majority they may choose to impeach. Hasn’t happened and as far as I know not even contemplated. Who’s out of step, you or your elected reps.
    Impeach? I never brought up impeachment.

    The Congress can impeach if they want.
    I think it would be quite justified based on so many (up to 935) lies.
    But that would stymie Congress’ other nefarious, self-serving goals, and cause them to have to do some actual work, eh?
    The Congress doesn’t give a $#!+ about the many violatons of the U.S. Constitution either, and it isn’t at all hard to prove.

    Jim M wrote: Of course there have been changes in supreme court rulings. None of the justices live forever. Varying presidents nominate justices with viewpoints on the constitution that may vary in time. Does that make the judges who made the initial ruling, changed later by a different court, somehow in violation of the constitution? How silly.
    Yes. In many cases. What’s silly is asserting otherwise.
    Jim M wrote: When congress makes changes in legislation that was enacted by a previous congress are they guilty of some crime? Of course not, …
    False.

    Congress persons all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    Jim M wrote: … it merely reflects current thinking by the currently elected members. Your arguments are thin, tired and non-sensible.
    Nonsense.

    Jim M, your arguments are very weak (to say the least), offer few (if any) solid facts, and mostly offer only flawed opinions of how the judicial system works (as correctly pointed out above by Rhinehold).

    The fact is, the government is violating the Constitution in many ways.
    The people have a right to challenge those violations.
    Let’s just take one instance.

    Please try (if you can) to prove that that the Congress and Supreme Court are not complicit in violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 7:56 PM
    Comment #247189

    d.a.n. may I suggest a course in remedial reading. You clearly don’t want to or can’t understand what I am saying. Too bad.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 6, 2008 1:57 PM
    Comment #247200
    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. may I suggest a course in remedial reading. You clearly don’t want to or can’t understand what I am saying. Too bad.
    Is it our fault, when nobody can understand your nonsensical comments and numerous contradictory statements?

    You seem to think people have to accept violations of the law and Constitution.
    They do not.

    And as Rhinehold tried to explain to you above (as futile as it appears), the lower courts also interpret the laws and the Constitution. Some disputes, if unresolved, can still filter up to higher courts, and sometimes, all the way to the Supreme Court.

    However, the fact is, the Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right, as demonstrated by many reversals.

    Jim M wrote: Five out of nine judges may produce an opinion you don’t like and that’s just tough shit. They get to interpret the rules not you.
    False.

    As Rhinehold tried futilely to explain to you

    Rhinehold wrote: “What a steaming load … ”
    Let me fix up your main misunderstanding. It *IS* the lower court justice’s job to interpret the constitution and apply it to cases that come before them. That is what all courts do. The Supreme Court is just the final arbitor of this, not the ONLY arbitor.
    So your arguement falls flat in that even those ‘liberal judges’ you mention are doing what they are supposed to be doing, elected by those who voted for them and definately NOT trying to perform an end around the process. They *ARE* the process.

    Any one can interpet the U.S. Constitution.
    And if any one disagrees, they can challenge it in court.
    And even if the Court judges, it does not mean the judgement is correct.
    It can be challenged over and over.
    Hopefully (most of the time), the right and just decision is eventually obtained (which may be a reversal; which has happened many times and will almost certainly happen again).

    • FACT # 1: The constitution has been violated in the past.

    • FACT # 2: The constitution is currently being violated.

    • FACT # 3: Congress explicitly violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution by choosing (in Walker vs. Members of Congress) to ignore Article V. That’s just one of many violations. The Supreme Court was complicit via abuse of the Catch-22 “no standing” dodge. But that dodge won’t last forever, because eventually a state Attorney General will eventually force the Supreme Court to deal with it.

    • FACT # 4: Citizens can, will, and should continue to challenge violations of the law and Constitution.

    • FACT # 5: Just because the courts allow violations to continue does not make the vioaltions non-existent. Breaking a law does not suddenly make the violation legal.

    • FACT # 6: If citizens never challenged violations of the law and Constitution, there would be more lawlessness than already exists now.

    Jim M wrote: Five out of nine judges may produce an opinion you don’t like and that’s just tough shit. They get to interpret the rules not you.
    Your comment seems to be asserting that we have to accept violations of the law and Constitution.

    That isn’t only false, but it is pure nonsense.

    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. … You clearly don’t want to or can’t understand what I am saying.
    Again, is that our fault?

    First, you tried (unsuccessfully) to argue (in another thread) the 9-to-1 fractional banking/monetary system.
    Now you’re trying (unsuccessfully) trying to argue how the judicial system works.

    How is anyone supposed to understand nonsense?

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 3:34 PM
    Comment #247221

    First, you tried (unsuccessfully) to argue (in another thread) the 9-to-1 fractional banking/monetary system.
    Now you’re trying (unsuccessfully) trying to argue how the judicial system works.

    How is anyone supposed to understand nonsense?
    Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 03:34 PM

    One more try d.a.n. First, I don’t even know what the 9/1 fractional system you mention is so I could hardly argue it.

    Second, when the supreme court makes a ruling it is constitutional…period. There is no person or group or court that can overrule the decision.

    Future courts can rule differently on the same question and change the meaning of the constitution to conform to their understanding.

    Are you with me so far, are we on the same page?

    Now if we agree so far, I contend that simply because a future court interprets the same question differently, it does not make the judge(s) who made the original ruling criminals or that original ruling unconstitutional. FINI

    Posted by: Jim M at March 6, 2008 5:33 PM
    Comment #247231

    d.a.n. forgive my poor memory, I do remember the 9/1 fractional banking nonsense you refer to. Wasn’t that the idea that a deposit of $1.00 in a bank could eventually be turned into enough reserve to finance the world’s entire debt?

    Posted by: Jim M at March 6, 2008 6:22 PM
    Comment #247237
    Jim M wrote: One more try d.a.n. First, I don’t even know what the 9/1 fractional system you mention is so I could hardly argue it. … d.a.n. forgive my poor memory, I do remember the 9/1 fractional banking nonsense you refer to. Wasn’t that the idea that a deposit of $1.00 in a bank could eventually be turned into enough reserve to finance the world’s entire debt?
    Is that what you think?

    If so, “How is anyone supposed to understand nonsense?” is more apropos than initially believed.

    Jim M wrote: Second, when the supreme court makes a ruling it is constitutional…period. There is no person or group or court that can overrule the decision.
    No one said over-ride.

    The assertion is that the citizens can challenge any ruling.
    There’s a big difference, but good try with the clever obfuscation and spin (i.e. over-ride versus challenge).
    If the Constitution is violated, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it, it still does not mean American citizens can not challenge it.
    Americans can, should, and will challenge it.
    Especially when the violation is so blatant and obvious (as with Article V).

    Jim M wrote: Future courts can rule differently on the same question and change the meaning of the constitution to conform to their understanding. Are you with me so far, are we on the same page?
    Sure. That’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.

    But that does not change your previous erroneous comments.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 7:48 PM
    Comment #247326

    d.a.n. The latest example of liberals loosing at the ballot box and attempting to force their opinion on the public by judicial action is occurring right now in California.

    The California initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000 banning same sex marriage is being contested as unconstitutional in the California Supreme Court.

    Judicial activism to thwart the clear will of the people at the ballot box is despicable. As I have said in previous posts, liberals can’t win at the ballot box with their ideology so they attempt to force their position on the majority by subverting a free and fair election.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 7, 2008 5:26 PM
    Comment #247344
    Jim M wrote: Judicial activism to thwart the clear will of the people at the ballot box is despicable.
    False.

    Majority (i.e. mob) rule does not, and should not supersede the U.S. Constitution, and should not supersede the State Constitution.
    There is an order of precedence which you are over-looking.
    Any new laws must not violate either the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.
    The Constitution(s) must be changed FIRST, before any new law can be passed and legal.

    Jim M wrote: As I have said in previous posts, liberals can’t win at the ballot box with their ideology so they attempt to force their position on the majority by subverting a free and fair election.
    It is not subversion, but upholding the law if the new law resulting from the election is violating the U.S. Constitution or state Constitution. The Constitution must be changed FIRST, before ANY new law can be passed and legal.

    That is how it is supposed to work, but in reality, perversion of the laws (lawlessness) sometimes occurs. However, any violation of the law does not justify the violation, or suddenly give the new law justification. People will can, will, and should challenge such violations.

    I don’t have an opinion on the specifics of the same-sex marriage issue, but what ever happens, it should first be based on:

  • (1) the U.S. Constitution and laws (which supersede state laws)

  • (2) then the state Constitution and laws (which supersede local laws)

  • (3) and then on the results of an election (which can not supersede (1) and (2) without first changing the Constitution(s)).

  • in that order.

    Otherwise, majority (i.e. mob) rule would attempt to trump civil rights, and the Constitution(s), and higher laws. Majority (i.e. mob) rule would destroy civil rights.

    Jim M wrote: As I have said in previous posts, liberals can’t win at the ballot box with their ideology so they attempt to force their position on the majority by subverting a free and fair election.
    Regarding the labels (e.g. “liberal”, “neocon”, “conservative”, etc.), based on Congress’ performance and voting records, it does not matter much who is a liberal or conservative, since most (if not all) incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress are corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, pork-happy, and wasteful. If you look at it objectively, the “liberal”, “neocon”, “conservative” labels don’t mean a hell of a lot. That just fuels the partisan warfare and distracts everyone from more substantive issues. There are too many incumbent politicians in BOTH parties that are corrupt, incompetent, wasteful, and irresponsible. Wallowing in the partisan warfare only distracts from that fact and lets them keep doing it. It is very powerful. Politicians love to fuel it, because it distracts from their incompetence and malfeasance. Do you want to allow the politicians to manipulate you? If not, disregard the politicians’ rhetoric to stir it up and make it stink, and scrutinize the politicians, because they (in BOTH parties) are ruining the nation, and too many voters are allowing it, and wallowing in the petty, distratcting partisan warfare is one of the politicians’ clever mechanisms to perpetuate it, and continue these abuses, growing worse; not better.

    The main problem is not liberal or conservative biases.
    The problem isn’t merely too many liberals, or convervatives, or neocons, etc., etc., etc.
    The problem is:

    • (1) Congress as a whole,

    • (2) and the voters that tolerate it, and repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm)

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2008 7:33 PM
    Post a comment