No one should be surprised that a liberal on the court fails to understand the Constitutional provisions, nor that a liberal wants to give up power to another branch of the federal government. Liberals have loved giving up their Constitutional power to the Executive branch….as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Of course, a lot of that power goes to the federal bureaucracy, and there’s not a damned thing the President can do about it
Kagan enters fray over Congress’ power to police Supreme Court
Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday jumped into the heated debate over ethics at the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress has broad powers to regulate the nation’s highest tribunal despite the recent claim from one of her conservative colleagues that such a step would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Kagan’s comments, at a judicial conference in Portland, came just days after the Senate Judiciary Committee responded to recent ethics controversies around justices’ luxury travel by advancing a bill requiring the court to establish an ethics code and setting up a mechanism that would enforce it.
“It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. We’re not imperial,” Kagan told the audience of judges and lawyers attending the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. “Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes.”
Kagan insisted she was not responding directly to Justice Samuel Alito’s blunt statements in an interview last month that Congress would be violating the Constitution’s separation of powers if lawmakers sought to impose ethics and recusal policies on the high court.
The real point of the Leftist “ethics” bill from the hardcore Democrats in the Senate is to use it to manufacture a way to kick conservatives off the Court, at least when a Democrat is in the White House, that way the Democrat POTUS can replace them with far left wackjobs. That’s it. Considering how shady Congress Critters are, they have no right to talk.
During her remarks on Thursday in an onstage conversation with a bankruptcy judge and attorney involved in organizing the conference, Kagan took a more conciliatory tone toward her conservative colleagues than she did last year in a flurry of public appearances that seemed to evince serious frustration with her role on the court. Those remarks followed the bitter disagreement over the court’s decision last June, by a 5-4 vote, to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion that had been recognized for nearly half a century.
That made Democrats livid, and they decided on a course of action to get rid of Conservatives, and, if enacted they would enforce it and it would be a threat to rule the Correct Way for future conservatives.
There’s zero chance it passes the GOP controlled House, but, really, if Trump is the candidate he’ll lose in 2024, and obliterate any chance of retaking the Senate, and will most likely lose the House, meaning the Democrats can pass it. At which point the Supreme Court will rule that the law is un-Constitutional, setting up a rather interesting fight between the branches.
I wonder if Democrats have considered that if the law ever passes the GOP could use it against the liberal judges?
aw, she did not get her way and have her colleagues celebrate her genius. so sad. maybe she should step down and get a job on msnbc where she can bring her genius to the masses
Yeah, let’s go with that.
Just like 2016, remember?
#LetsGoBrandon
Bwaha! Lolgf
Mr Teach: The real point of the Leftist “ethics” bill from the hardcore Democrats in the Senate is to use it to manufacture a way to kick conservatives off the Court
That’s not true. The real point is that all justices abide by a code of ethics that would compel them to report expensive gifts. Right now that may impact arch-conservative justices more than liberals.
Elwood you are stuck in the 1980s. There are no arch conservative justices nor liberal judges any longer.
Today’s Supreme Court is made-up of four left pro communist judges who make up **** as they go along and constitutionalist judges that actually try and enforce the constitution.
For example when the writer makes a statement like “bitter disagreement over the court’s decision last June, by a 5-4 vote, to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion that had been recognized for nearly half a century” any intelligent person can see that he’s an idiot. There was never a federal constitutional right to abortion. Abortion does not appear in the constitution and therefore any decisions on abortion should never have gone to the federal government and should have always remained with the states. Even a moron like Elwood knows that.
At some park the authoritarians on the left have to be stopped otherwise the United states is gonna end up in the same condition that Brazil or Venezuela or any of those other half assed countries are in.
I and my fellow patriots realize that leftists would rather live in a communist shithole that allow anyone to have another opinion other than theirs. Their way of life his dominance not freedom they live by force not liberty that’s why they hate everything from God to the words of the constitution.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/the_usas_turn_toward_communism.html
CarolAnn,
You are confused about Constitutional rights. Semi-automatic rifles are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, just as abortion is not mentioned, yet our Supreme Court “interprets” our Constitution to support certain rights. Even a moron like CarolAnn should understand that, but yet you do not.
The right to vote is not in the Constitution, a fact that conservatives rely on to keep “the others” from voting.
Can Illinois close its border so Missourians can’t enter? Why not?
Do you have a “right” to privacy? Why are television, radio, social media not addressed by the Constitution? Labor unions? Political parties? Corporations?
The rest of your bullshit comment is just lather, rinse, repeat of your “christian” hatred of those who disagree with you.
Rimjob: The rest of your bullshit comment is just lather, rinse, repeat
(Oh, that is soooo original. Clever too.)
You should know, porky.
You do it all the time.
#TheStenchFromAfftonMoWillNeverGoAway
Bwaha! Lolgf
These “others” that conservatives allegedly keep from voting-are they in the room with you now?
i love it when leftists quote the constitution. they always seem to forget that the constitution is not what gives the people their rights. it is the list of thing the government is forbidden to do. It was the price to be paid for having the states agree to a federal government.
You are right, Wildman, but it’s not just lefties who don’t understand the origin of rights, and how the constitution works. I’ve seen far too many on the right claim that because some “right” is not specifically listed in the constitution, it doesn’t exist.
One fault in the constitution, I believe is that there’s no “definitions”. Maybe the Founders thought we were smart enough to not need it. (Hold my beer) Seems like that 14th amendment quoted up there would have overturned Roe v Wade at the outset… after all you’re depriving a person of their life without due process…
On the issue of Congressional oversight of the Supremes, the power to impeach is sufficient, and is already in place.
You being a hateful communist Democrat does not excuse you from your ignorance as I stated there is no written constitutional right to an abortion. Pointing out things that are not constitutional rights does not change this. And if you’re going to talk about the 14th amendment you need to read it over again.
You commies on the left are so full of hate for freedom loving patriots it’s unbelievable and especially if we’re Christian period
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/missouri_democratic_party_deletes_tweet_calling_for_burning_down_trump_supporters_home.html
But wasn’t the 14th used to justify Roe v Wade? Anyway, an early fetus is not a person.
We saw what you did there, nobody stated that a fetus is a person. We stated that a fetus is a human. Which it is. Unless perhaps you think it’s something else. In which case we’d love to hear your explanation of what it is maybe an alien from Mars?
A fetus just like a baby a newborn a child an adolescent a teen a young adult a mature adult or geriatric like yourself are all humans at different stages of development. If you kill one you kill a human.
If you don’t believe that the fetus is a human being then pray tell us that magical moment went POOF! it suddenly becomes one.
The 14th Amendment, in part: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
It’s simple. Pass laws that make a fetus a person. Or Amend the Constitution.
Our commenter from St Louis County wrote:
And it wasn’t even a novel idea: Chief Justice Roger Taney had declared Negroes to not be persons with rights back in 1858, so there’s that.
But when Mr Dowd told us that “an early fetus is not a person,” it raised the obvious question: at what point does he believe that an unborn child ceases to be an “early fetus”? At what point does an unborn child become a person, in Mr Dowd’s mind?
History assures us that the Supremes were wrong in the case of Dred Scott (1857), although many of our friends on the right are not convinced. Chief Justice Taney wrote that the Constitution viewed people of African American descent as an “inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Negroes were not persons. The majority was a collection of mostly Southern slave-owners. The 14th Amendment (1868) kicked Taney to the curb and the dustbin of history.
Of course a human sperm and human ovum will yield a human zygote and with good fortune a human embryo, fetus and infant. While some 80% of zygotes begin the implantation process only 50% succeed, meaning that some 60% of fertilized ova die in the first few weeks after fertilization.
Does the Constitution consider the unborn to be “persons”? The Founding Fathers set the minimum age for President to be 35 years old, counting from the date of birth, not the date of conception.
So when does a fertilized ovum become a person? I don’t know. In practice, and in law, it has been presumed that when a fetus can live outside the womb they deserve some degree of protection as a “person”.
Roe v Wade was a compromise that created the “trimester” system allowing: an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months (trimester) of pregnancy;
some government regulation in the second trimester; states to restrict or ban abortions in the last trimester as the fetus nears the point where it could live outside the womb.
Roe v Wade also established that in the final trimester, a woman could obtain an abortion despite any legal ban only if doctors certify it is necessary to save her life or health.
In practice, over 90% of US abortions occur in the first trimester.
Personhood for the fetus would preclude any abortions, as a raped and impregnated 11 yr old would have no more rights than the 6 week gestational age embryo. How would you decide between the life of the woman vs the life of the fetus if the woman’s life was significantly threatened by the continued pregnancy? A fetus expected to live only hours once born, for example, anencephalic, trisomy 18 or other fatal fetal abnormalities, would possess the same rights as the woman.