Republicans Want Term Limits For Supreme Court, Forbid Court From Deciding Same-Sex Marriage, “Judicial Supremacy Is Factually Wrong”


This is the first newspaper story that caught my attention above the fold today.

I am now sure how to respond.

Shock?

Awe?

Despair?

Frustration?

Glee that the most miscalculated ideas are making news and letting independent voters understand fully the scope of madness that lurks among some who wish to be president?

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”

It appears that only Mitt Romney, who is likely to get the GOP nomination, has not jumped off the cliff.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has so far shied away from the far-reaching criticisms of his rivals. At a conservative forum in South Carolina, he dismissed the idea of a Congressional confrontation with the Supreme Court over abortion, saying, “I’m not looking to create a constitutional crisis.”       

It should also be noted that those conservatives who want the rest of us to think they are the only ones who understand the constitution, and use the text for every move they make, are the ones that now want to change the ‘holy text’.

How convenient.

Section 1 of Article III, for instance, confers life tenure on federal judges, saying they “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” But Mr. Perry, in his book “Fed Up!,” wrote approvingly of proposals “to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power.”  

It is just absurd that conservatives, (and I have heard this blather for decades) find Marbury v. Madison an issue they still can not swallow.  FOR ****** PETE’S SAKE!!!

In his book, Mr. Perry also discussed allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote. This too would require a constitutional amendment, assuming that the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madisonin 1803 continues to be accepted.       

But the Marbury decision, which gave the Supreme Court the last word in interpreting the Constitution, has its critics. Mr. Gingrich, for instance, told the Values Voter Summit in October that “judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the American system of self-government.”       

Mr. Gingrich, joined by Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Paul, has called for limiting the federal courts’ ability to hear certain kinds of cases. Whether that would be constitutional is hard to assess.       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s