Steve King (R-Iowa) with support from our very own Ted Yoho (R-FL) have drawn up a bill that will tell the Supreme Court and all Federal courts what political cases they may not consider. The court must say, we are so sorry but the GOP has ruled that our Constitutional authority to judge has been stripped in this matter. This legislation of course is from those Constitutional conservative who loudly bray about our Founding Fathers and original intent.
No such proposal has ever become law, but if the right wing of the right wing party has its way, there might be a lot of interesting topics they would tell the justices not to judge.

https://steveking.house.gov/media-ce...n-marriage-act

Steve King is trying to block the Supreme Court from deciding marriage equality

It is well established in most sane quarters that it is the role of the court to interpret the Constitution. The role of Congress is to amend the Constitution with the support of the states when such adjustments are needed. But those who can read and took American history or a course on the Constitution already knew that.

" Back in the 1980s, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) repeatedly tried to prevent federal courts from hearing cases related to school prayer. About a decade ago, Sam Brownback and Todd Akin (remember him?) worked on similar measures related to the Pledge of Allegiance"

Before you call anyone crazy you may want to research what occurred in Canada when they went about re-defining the definition of marriage being between a man and woman.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Steve King (R-Iowa) with support from our very own Ted Yoho (R-FL) have drawn up a bill that will tell the Supreme Court and all Federal courts what political cases they may not consider. The court must say, we are so sorry but the GOP has ruled that our Constitutional authority to judge has been stripped in this matter. This legislation of course is from those Constitutional conservative who loudly bray about our Founding Fathers and original intent.
No such proposal has ever become law, but if the right wing of the right wing party has its way, there might be a lot of interesting topics they would tell the justices not to judge.

https://steveking.house.gov/media-ce...n-marriage-act

Steve King is trying to block the Supreme Court from deciding marriage equality

It is well established in most sane quarters that it is the role of the court to interpret the Constitution. The role of Congress is to amend the Constitution with the support of the states when such adjustments are needed. But those who can read and took American history or a course on the Constitution already knew that.

" Back in the 1980s, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) repeatedly tried to prevent federal courts from hearing cases related to school prayer. About a decade ago, Sam Brownback and Todd Akin (remember him?) worked on similar measures related to the Pledge of Allegiance"

Sort of reminds you of the many Democratic Party efforts to overrule the Supreme Court; I think the most recent about a year ago proposing legislation to flat out OVERRULE the court....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us...ling.html?_r=0

Business as usual for BOTH parties

Originally Posted by Guest

Steve King (R-Iowa) with support from our very own Ted Yoho (R-FL) have drawn up a bill that will tell the Supreme Court and all Federal courts what political cases they may not consider. The court must say, we are so sorry but the GOP has ruled that our Constitutional authority to judge has been stripped in this matter. This legislation of course is from those Constitutional conservative who loudly bray about our Founding Fathers and original intent.
No such proposal has ever become law, but if the right wing of the right wing party has its way, there might be a lot of interesting topics they would tell the justices not to judge.

https://steveking.house.gov/media-ce...n-marriage-act

Steve King is trying to block the Supreme Court from deciding marriage equality

It is well established in most sane quarters that it is the role of the court to interpret the Constitution. The role of Congress is to amend the Constitution with the support of the states when such adjustments are needed. But those who can read and took American history or a course on the Constitution already knew that.

" Back in the 1980s, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) repeatedly tried to prevent federal courts from hearing cases related to school prayer. About a decade ago, Sam Brownback and Todd Akin (remember him?) worked on similar measures related to the Pledge of Allegiance"

Actually, if you look at what the Supreme Court has "legislated" on a variety of issues over the past 40 years or so, it's clear that the separation of powers has gotten out of whack. Which is to say, the SC has become way too powerful and we need more balance on the scales, or check and balance if you prefer.

Thus, what's really needed is a statute, or possibly an amendment, which gives the Congress a 2/3s override capability on any ruling the court issues. In addition, I would advocate term limits (say 10 years) for SC Justices. Ruth Buzzi, for example, is senile and apparently a drunk as well.

Would you list some of the issues that you believe have been legislated from the Supreme Court? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sort of reminds you of the many Democratic Party efforts to overrule the Supreme Court; I think the most recent about a year ago proposing legislation to flat out OVERRULE the court....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us...ling.html?_r=0

Business as usual for BOTH parties

Sorry, you only get a close but certainly no cigar. The NYT article has to do with a supreme court decision regarding the interpretation and wording of a law. The SC ruled on its interpretation of that law and the Democrats considered to rewrite the exact wording of the law to remove the court's objection. The Democrats did not tell the court they cannot interpret the law nor that they cannot interpret the constitution. Both parties have in the past and will continue to disagree with SC decisions. This proposal from KIng, Yoho et al is entirely different in that it attempts to prohibit the courts from being one part of our three part government. It is frankly not defensible as a constitutional bill. What would King propose when the courts rule that his law on what the courts can rule upon is unconstitutional. He will have to have another law that says the courts can't rule his law was unconstitutional, and down the rabbit hole we go.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sorry, you only get a close but certainly no cigar. The NYT article has to do with a supreme court decision regarding the interpretation and wording of a law. The SC ruled on its interpretation of that law and the Democrats considered to rewrite the exact wording of the law to remove the court's objection. The Democrats did not tell the court they cannot interpret the law nor that they cannot interpret the constitution. Both parties have in the past and will continue to disagree with SC decisions. This proposal from KIng, Yoho et al is entirely different in that it attempts to prohibit the courts from being one part of our three part government. It is frankly not defensible as a constitutional bill. What would King propose when the courts rule that his law on what the courts can rule upon is unconstitutional. He will have to have another law that says the courts can't rule his law was unconstitutional, and down the rabbit hole we go.

LOL Sort of like immigration "proclamations" !!!! And others but why quibble.

What is your point. Is it worthy of a discussion when some one in EITHER PARTY puts forth an unreasonable proposal, because it is a proposal...your intent is obvious and not germaine to what is happening now in the country and the world.

Originally Posted by Guest

Before you call anyone crazy you may want to research what occurred in Canada when they went about re-defining the definition of marriage being between a man and woman.

Personal Best Regards:

So I looked up the redefinition of marriage in Canada and found that gay marriage has been the law of the land for 10 years. And that Canada's supreme court had jurisdiction over the definition in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. And that no one tried to remove the Constitutional authority of Canada's court to do its Constitutionally given role. So what exactly does Canada's experience with following its laws and abiding by its constitution and separation of powers tell you about whether King and Yoho are nuts to propose this law here?

Originally Posted by Guest

Before you call anyone crazy you may want to research what occurred in Canada when they went about re-defining the definition of marriage being between a man and woman.

Personal Best Regards:

Nobody seems to be able to find out what occurred in Canada when they went about re-defining the definition of marriage being between a man and woman. Could you enlighten us?

Most republicans I know will Concede that Steve King is insane.

Originally Posted by Guest

Most republicans I know will Concede that Steve King is insane.

He's insane in the same partisan way that Elizabeth Warren or Barbara Lee are, except most Democrats would think it's normal.