Interesting Bill Kicking around Congress

[digamma]

The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/

The bill, as proposed, would allow Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions having to do with constitutionality with a 2/3 vote.

I wonder if the representatives have pondered the constitutionality of their own bill--other than slapping Article III, Section 2 on there (which deals with the cases over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction).

[Draft Dodger]

so, could the Supreme Court overturn this bill?

[Easy Mac]

as long as its not an amendment. Though I'm not sure who would have standing in the case if the Supreme Court objected... could the Supreme Court sue the US and then hear its own case?

[digamma]

so, could the Supreme Court overturn this bill?
I would think it would be an easy call for them.

Judicial review has been around for 200+ years. More recently, the City of Boerne case reaffirmed the idea that the courts, and not Congress, has the power to define rights under the Constitution.

[Easy Mac]

And I personally hate Jim DeMint even more now... I wonder if he would consider it judicial activism if the Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

[GrantDawg]

I would think this could only be done in the form of an amendment.

[digamma]

as long as its not an amendment. Though I'm not sure who would have standing in the case if the Supreme Court objected... could the Supreme Court sue the US and then hear its own case?
That's an interesting point. Maybe someone who won a decision in the Supreme Court and then had their case overturned.

[larrymcg421]

I would think the ABA or any congressman who voted no would have standing on this bill. Also, anyone who has a case pending would definitely have standing.

[WussGawd]

No way this would work without a constitutional amendment.

[kcchief19]

as long as its not an amendment. Though I'm not sure who would have standing in the case if the Supreme Court objected... could the Supreme Court sue the US and then hear its own case?I believe any party who had a Supereme Court verdict in their favor overturned by Congress would have legal standing. Of course, that would lead to quite a vicious circle -- Congress overturns an act of Congress, Congress overturns the Supreme Court decision, Supreme Court rules Congress acted in violation of Constitution, Congress overturns, etc., etc.

I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, but these individuals have managed to display the clearest lack of understanding of the Constitution I have ever seen. The humor of this bill works on many different levels, all unintentional I'm sure. :)

[tategter]

Why does Congress all-of-a-sudden think that they are the higher than the highest court in the land? Last thing this country needs is a bunch of politicians, even though they are mostly lawyers, making constitutional judgment calls on decisions by judges who make it their life's work.

The appeal process has to stop somewhere. Might as well be with the most highly qualified people available, which it for the most part already is.

[Huckleberry]

The existing procedure for Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution is to pass a new amendment. That new amendment would then apply moving forward.

This bill is a joke and the author(s) should be removed from office based on sheer stupidity.

[John Galt]

That's an interesting point. Maybe someone who won a decision in the Supreme Court and then had their case overturned.

I think that is how it would happen (similar to how it occurred in Marbury v. Madison)

[John Galt]

I would think the ABA or any congressman who voted no would have standing on this bill. Also, anyone who has a case pending would definitely have standing.

I don't think either the ABA or congress would have standing. I think like in Marbury, you need someone who was wronged (ie someone who had their case overturned by Congress).

[GrantDawg]

Here is my question: Would the SC have to wait for the challenge to go through all the courts, or could they take it immediately? I would guess that even with this conservative court they would want it over-turned ASAP. No one likes to give up power, esp. that level of power.

[Easy Mac]

I'd think they'd have initial jurisdiction.

[digamma]

Here is my question: Would the SC have to wait for the challenge to go through all the courts, or could they take it immediately? I would guess that even with this conservative court they would want it over-turned ASAP. No one likes to give up power, esp. that level of power.
I can't think of a way the Supreme Court would be able to hear it immediately. Original jurisdiction of the SC is limited to cases where consuls, ministers (of the foreign kind--you are safe, GD) or states are a party (or where Congress so designates). I'm pretty sure Congress wouldn't so designate here.

[Barkeep49]

And wouldn't it be to the SC advantage NOT to be the one to hear it? After all Congress couldn't overturn a decision by the DC Circuit or Appeals that this bill was unconstitutional :)... Avoids the whole circle thing.

[miked]

Is this basically to prevent judges from permitting gay weddings or a school prayer issue or a church and state case? I only thought that because I remember W's speech about "activist judges" so I can only assume this is aiming to prevent these things that the religious right been complaining about for a while. The ones that come to mind are the Alabama judge, the California pledge and school prayer issues...

I could be wrong, just wondering why this is even plausible.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

[GrantDawg]

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
My favorite. Conjuction Junction a distant second.

[judicial clerk]

I think this is a great idea. It would keep the constitution from always getting in the way. Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!

Another way to go would be to make any bill that crongess passes by at least a 2/3 vote an automatic amendment to the constitution, instead of just some weak-ass statute that the courts could rule is unconstitutional. Boy, talk about your living, breathing documents!

[Desnudo]

I think this is a great idea. It would keep the constitution from always getting in the way. Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!

Another way to go would be to make any bill that crongess passes by at least a 2/3 vote an automatic amendment to the constitution, instead of just some weak-ass statute that the courts could rule is unconstitutional. Boy, talk about your living, breathing documents!
Ideally, constitutional decisions would be made by the winner of a Survivor-style showdown between the nine justices and nine congressman, selected by the public.

[judicial clerk]

I think we should institute Constitutional Kumate. We could have the Ultimate Fighting Championship inventor become the Court Administrator. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, then three of the Justices who voted against the law (including the opinion writer) face off against two of the members of congress who voted in favor of the law. It could be tag team style, or royal rumble based on what jurisdiction the law was originally contested in.

[Surtt]

Maybe the President could be the referee.

[Easy Mac]

How about we let them all play Russian Roulette.