john roberts confirmation

[SWATJester_os]

Just read an AP article and I'm kind of confused

"In response to a question from Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., he said Congress has the right to overturn a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows cities broad power to seize and raze people's homes for private development. "This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said. He said he had been surprised when he learned of the court's ruling."


Since when does congress have the authority to declare the supreme court's rulings unconstitutional? That totally ass-backwards everything about judicial review, including Marbury v. Madison.


and elsewhere in that page:


"Even as Roberts fielded questions, there was fresh evidence of the contentious issues that await him if he is confirmed to replace the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. There were gasps from the audience when word was relayed from the committee dais that a federal judge in California had ruled the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God." Roberts was not asked for his opinion."


Uh...are they referring to the 9th Circuit ruling several years ago? I don't understand, the 9th Circuit has already made that ruling. They can't be referring to a District judge in california, because the Circuit's ruling already supercedes that. They can't be referring to a Circuit decision or an En Banc circuit decision, because they just said A federal judge, not a panel of federal judges. So wtf is the AP talking about, or are they just misleading things?

[ScAvenger001]

afaik, congress doesn't have any authority to override the rulings of the supreme court, but it has every authority to change the laws and legislations that those rulings are based on.

[FaKToR]

Except eminent domain is local issue.

[Walnut]

Except eminent domain is local issue.

Right, but several states have already banned/are in the process of banning the use of eminent domain for private development, and I don't know why the Feds couldn't do the same thing.

[Pert]

Since when does congress have the authority to declare the supreme court's rulings unconstitutional? That totally ass-backwards everything about judicial review, including Marbury v. Madison.

Since Congress can change the Constitution.

[SWATJester_os]

afaik, congress doesn't have any authority to override the rulings of the supreme court, but it has every authority to change the laws and legislations that those rulings are based on.

Since Congress can change the Constitution.


Exactly. Which I don't see any constitutional amendments, and plus, Roberts not being a congressman............

I heard a newsbite on Fox XM Radio about the pledge in california too......seriously, what happened?

[Lord Kelvin]

"Even as Roberts fielded questions, there was fresh evidence of the contentious issues that await him if he is confirmed to replace the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. There were gasps from the audience when word was relayed from the committee dais that a federal judge in California had ruled the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God." Roberts was not asked for his opinion."


Uh...are they referring to the 9th Circuit ruling several years ago? I don't understand, the 9th Circuit has already made that ruling. They can't be referring to a District judge in california, because the Circuit's ruling already supercedes that. They can't be referring to a Circuit decision or an En Banc circuit decision, because they just said A federal judge, not a panel of federal judges. So wtf is the AP talking about, or are they just misleading things?
They're talking about the "Athiest Dad" who got so much attention awhile back because he sued exactly for that. He failed to sue about three years ago because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he was sueing.

[GrosPoisson]

I guess I'm just getting more and more exasperated with our state's so-called liberals who harp on tolerance all the time, but when it comes to something they don't agree with that concept disappears.

I don't know, it just seems like it should be a non-issue. In my experience at every level of public school education in this state, the standing rule was that if you as a student were offended by "Under God" or having to say the pledge for whatever reason, you just had to stand up when it was time. No need to say anything, no need for the hand over the heart. Granted, this is just my experience, so take that however you will.

[SWATJester_os]

They're talking about the "Athiest Dad" who got so much attention awhile back because he sued exactly for that. He failed to sue about three years ago because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he was sueing.


Ok ok I see now

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169379,00.html


Basically the summary is.... years ago, 9th circuit court panel rules pledge unconstitutional. This sets precedent. Now, district judge (inferior to circuit) rules, based on that precedent, on a similar case with different litigants. He follows circuit precedent. It will appeal to 9th circuit who will likely uphold their prior ruling ( 9th circuit has something like 28 judges, out of which a random 3 are chosen for each case. It's not likely the same 3 as the last case will be chosen.) If it upholds, the litigant can appeal for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, which will likely be granted, or alternatively appeal for an en banc decision, which probably won't happen, because the US Supreme Court hates the 9th circuit.

Actually in Courts yesterday (tuesday) we talked about why lawyers jokingly refer to Oct. 1 2003, when the USSC summarily reversed 3 decisions from the 9th circuit in the space of about 30 seconds.

Basically that means "We don't even deem your ruling intelligent enough to even waste time WRITING an opinion as to why it's so wrong. Reversed.".....3 times. Bam Bam Bam.....one after another.

[FaKToR]

I guess I'm just getting more and more exasperated with our state's so-called liberals who harp on tolerance all the time, but when it comes to something they don't agree with that concept disappears.

What are you talking about? The government shouldn't be taking any side on religious issues.

I don't know, it just seems like it should be a non-issue. In my experience at every level of public school education in this state, the standing rule was that if you as a student were offended by "Under God" or having to say the pledge for whatever reason, you just had to stand up when it was time. No need to say anything, no need for the hand over the heart. Granted, this is just my experience, so take that however you will.
What if the pledge was "one nation, there is no god..." The government shouldn't be taking sides on this issue period, just because there is a minority that no one really cares about doesn't mean it's alright.

[GrosPoisson]

What are you talking about? The government shouldn't be taking any side on religious issues.

...I thought that's what I was saying in my post? Hence the usage of the word "non-issue." I think it's silly to waste all this energy on something this trivial.

[marty]

How could reciting a pledge that says the US is "under God" in a government institution not be taking sides?

I'm saying this as an ordained minister. (Oh man, I've waited since yesterday to pull this out -- just ignore it, appeal to authority is a fallacy anyway)

[Lord Kelvin]

Personally I agree that it's unconstitutional, but in a different way than the media's been making out. I'm not saying "Oh, I want to raise my child as an athiest, so I'm going to stick it to all the Christians in the country!" and I'm sure that that's not exactly what the dad wants either. It's just that I think that government should be separated from church. I don't want to stick it to the Christians; hell, I don't even have any problems with them except for the extremists (but everyone except extremists hate extremists).