House Bill H.R. 3920

[Groty]

This is a sneaky little bill that has gained some momentum in the House. I've thought about it every other day since discovering it. I know what I think of it :mad: , but I wanna open it up for discussion here.



To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Linkage:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.3920:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03920:@@@L&summ2=m&


How do you feel about this Bill, based on your knowledge of the Constitution?
Why do you think Representatives have drafted such a Bill? What do they want to do with this power?
If passed and the citizens are made aware of it, what do you think will happen to America?

[Division56]

Checks and balan..whaaa???

[Hypnos]

I think the Supreme Court would strike it down ;)

[Spartan26]

Well if the bill passes couldn't the Supreme Court overrule it as unconstitutional?

I think it was introduced, my guess, by a conservative as a rallying point for an election. It'd be a way to say, "Hey, no more lefty decissions coming out of the supreme court! They're supposed to interpret the law not write them. We can't let 9 people impose their veiw against that of the populus..."

Sounds like it'll give congress the right to interpret court rulings, right? (I didn't read your links) In theory it sounds like a bad idea. But I can't see too many cases where a ruling comes down and then congress could get a 66% vote to over turn it.

Is it just me or in the past 20-30 years has the supreme court made decisions based more on indirect issues related to the matter in order to swing an opinion, as oppsed to ruling directly on the main matter at hand? Like the issue over Florida punchcards wasn't based on the right or not to count or re-count the ballots but on the right to use or not use machines, which then in turn determines the right or not to count ballots. *(Off the top of my head - can't recall specifics.) I just remember thinking that they danced around the central issue. They could've come up with the same outcome while still addressing the matter at hand.

It's hard to follow politics without feeling powerless. :(

[Melody]

The supreme court is full of cantankerous hooligans.

[Boozer]

Checks and balan..whaaa??? :rofl:

Talk about a blatant power grab. Poliics is like some kind of shadiness competition.

[Groty]

Well if the bill passes couldn't the Supreme Court overrule it as unconstitutional?

Could they? Or would it be stuck in a loop? Supreme Court declares Unconstitutional, Congress overrules....


I think it was introduced, my guess, by a conservative as a rallying point for an election.

I think it's a fear that the ACLU will finally get the Patriot Act in front of the Supreme Court. It will be struck down.



I just remember thinking that they danced around the central issue.

But they must make a decision based on the argument presented to them by the lawyers. What was the text of the suit? I don't recall seeing it. Maybe the lawyers danced around it, argued around, because they felt that was the best way to approach it.

[Claverhouse]

But they must make a decision based on the argument presented to them by the lawyers. What was the text of the suit? I don't recall seeing it. Maybe the lawyers danced around it, argued around, because they felt that was the best way to approach it.


Or because they maximise income that way.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[cloakable]

But they must make a decision based on the argument presented to them by the lawyers. What was the text of the suit? I don't recall seeing it. Maybe the lawyers danced around it, argued around, because they felt that was the best way to approach it.


Or because they maximise income that way.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Now that was overly cynical of you, Claverhouse.

Wait... there's no such thing as too cynical. :D

[Groty]

But they must make a decision based on the argument presented to them by the lawyers. What was the text of the suit? I don't recall seeing it. Maybe the lawyers danced around it, argued around, because they felt that was the best way to approach it.


Or because they maximise income that way.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

LOL

"Okay, sorry guys, since we lost, we want to try it again, but with a different arguement. And, oh, did I mention our fees are going up? And, we just lobbied for a new Tax law involving Lawyer Fees. You're gonna need a new accountant with the expertise. We just happen to have a guy that specializes in this new tax law... He helped draft it, so he knows how to get around it!"

[crule81]

Unfortunately, I was only able to take one class in constitutional law at law school. It's probably the most far-reaching and interesting area of the law. We spent most of our time on due process, equal protection, and the commerce clause. My analysis here is only based on my imperfect memory from 4 years ago.

As far as I can tell, this legislation cannot be constitutional because it essentially allows Congress to "amend" the Constitution on a 2/3 vote without approval of the state legislatures. Congress's "veto" wouldn't actually amend the Constitution but because the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, it would change the accepted meaning of the Constitution.

Courts interpret legislation all the time. If it doesn't involve constitutional issues, a legislature that doesn't agree with a court decision can simply draft bills to overrule certain decisions. Legislation like this, however, would completely destroy the meaning of the Constitution and its safeguards against tyranny by the majority.

Congress can, however, limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain instances. Unfortunately, without the help of my Con Law book, I can't tell you exactly what these situations are from memory. But this bill doesn't say anything about curtailing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions in the past: Dred Scot, Plessy v. Fergueson, Koramatsu, and most recently (in my opinion) Grutter v. Bollinger. However, major errors have usually been corrected with time. Bills like this one remind me of Andrew Jackson's famous quote: "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." Or FDR's attempt to "pack" the Court by adding judges when some of his New Deal legislation was struck down. While checks and balances are not always equalized, legislation like this would go too far and pave the way for legislative tyranny as attempted by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction.

This is not complete due to my faulty memory and I'll do some research into it if I get the time. Maybe we can get the input of the other known attorney here, MacGuffin.

[MacGuffin]

One tidbit: it wasn't until Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the Supreme Court had judicial review. And that was because they gave themselves judicial review in that case. Pretty sweet maneuver.

Here is a good (brief) overview:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

P.S. I hate Andrew Jackson. That jackass anti-intellectual.

[crule81]

One tidbit: it wasn't until Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the Supreme Court had judicial review. And that was because they gave themselves judicial review in that case. Pretty sweet maneuver.

Yeah, that's one big point I overlooked. This country would be a mess without judicial review.


P.S. I hate Andrew Jackson. That jackass anti-intellectual.

Amen. What the hell did he do as president to deserve to be on the twenty-dollar bill? The only thing I remember is that he prevented South Carolina from seceding from the union due to tariffs.

[MacGuffin]

Amen. What the hell did he do as president to deserve to be on the twenty-dollar bill? The only thing I remember is that he prevented South Carolina from seceding from the union due to tariffs.

He had a cool nickname?

He ought to be beaten with an ol' hickory stick.

[KentOhio]

What the hell did he do as president to deserve to be on the twenty-dollar bill?

In my opinion, he's on there because, love him or hate him, he was the first democrat.

But about this bill... The Supreme Court doesn't currently have any checks against it, that I can think of. Am I missing one? If they have none now, they should get one.

[MacGuffin]

But about this bill... The Supreme Court doesn't currently have any checks against it, that I can think of. Am I missing one? If they have none now, they should get one.

Constitutional amendments.

Yeah that is a pretty hard thing to get. But that is ok. If the bar was any lower you'd just go around and around with no resolution.

[libertarianjim]

What the hell did he do as president to deserve to be on the twenty-dollar bill?

In my opinion, he's on there because, love him or hate him, he was the first democrat.

But about this bill... The Supreme Court doesn't currently have any checks against it, that I can think of. Am I missing one? If they have none now, they should get one.

Don't forget that Andrew Jackson also fought in a duel and killed a lot of Indians.

SCOTUS has quite a few checks against it, it's just that they either seem trivial or are relatively unknown.

1) Constitutional Amendment
2) Size of the court: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court must consist of 9 members. Congress can pass legislation altering the size of the Court at any time. FDR proposed doing just such a thing when the Court kept striking down his New Deal programs. The public reaction against FDR was sharp, so he backed down, but if the public's esteem of the Court were to decline, such a plan might be feasible.
3) Congress determines the Supreme Court's and Courts' of Appeal appellate jurisdictions. If Congress decides that they don't want the Court reviewing certain acts, they can simply say so. (The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is set by the Constitution, but only around 1% of the Court's docket comes to them on original jurisdiction.)
4) Congress "ordains and establishes" lower courts, (The District Courts and the Courts of Appeal, as well as others) reducing the burden on the Supreme Court. Congress can shrink those courts or refuse to fill vacancies, straining the entire process.
5) Congress sets the salaries for the entire judicial branch. While the Constitution stipulates that judicial salaries cannot be reduced, Congress can simply refuse to raise the salaries for judges and justices.
6) Congress can re-pass legislation that the Court has struck down, narrowly rectifying the problem areas specifically dealt with in the majority opinion.
7) Congress and the President can simply ignore the Supreme Court. The Court has no enforcement power of its own and depends on the Executive Branch to fulfill its mandates. In the words of Andrew Jackson: "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."