GOP House Rep Says SCOTUS Doesn’t Actually Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutionual

[gator996]

Scary what the teaparty can support in a candidate...


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/13/1712431/jim-bridenstine-supreme-court/
GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn’t Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bridenstine-300x220.jpg


Still smarting over last year’s ruling upholding Obamacare, freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, didn’t have the heart to correct Bridenstine’s peculiar view of the Court’s role.


BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate

[MichiGator2002]

Not really seeing the controversy here. "American says Supreme Court has been wrong before on Constitutional issue" isn't a very alarming headline.

[gator996]

He isn't saying they've been occassional wrong on an issue...he's dismissing their role as the "Supreme Court"...


This is the same exact argument posed by Rand Paul right after the Obamacare decision...


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-repeats-its-still-not-constitutional-127702.html


Rand Paul repeats: It's still not constitutional

Rand Paul drew some attention Thursday when he declared the Supreme Court was flat wrong about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and that "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

The Kentucky senator repeats and expands upon the argument in a National Review column today:


[W]ith the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.

Make no mistake: Obamacare is not constitutional. As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, Americans, whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product — health insurance — or pay a penalty.

Emphasis added. While the role of the Court is, as a matter of literal fact, to declare by majority opinion what is and is not constitutional, there's also a long history of thought on what makes a Court decision legitimate and viable in the eyes of the public. Paul's argument is that because the Court got it wrong, the defense of the Constitution will have to depend on the people the Court governs.


Obamacare
Row v Wade
Voting Rights Act


And the list grows for GOP court cases lost but still litigating until the end of time...

[MichiGator2002]

He isn't doing anything of the kind, even in your quoted excerpt. You are singling out the phraseology and blowing it into something absurd.

[wgbgator]

The more absurd argument is that "the left" has "stacked" the court(s). The courts havent been this conservative since probably the early 20th century.

[MichiGator2002]

The more absurd argument is that "the left" has "stacked" the court(s). The courts havent been this conservative since probably the early 20th century.

You are as likely to find a unicorn as you are a bona fide conservative in most Art III courts. The few there are on the Supreme Court shouldn't give you that impression. Kennedy isn't conservative in the least, he just respects the concept of individual liberty enough to have known the mandate was pants... just in time for us to learn that Roberts is a doof (seriously, I hope Roberts was watching when Feinstein made a joke of his "presumption of constitutionality" fancy by explicitly dis mailing that constitutionality even figured into the legislative process).

Kelo was another good example of the Supreme Court being wrong.

[wgbgator]

You are as likely to find a unicorn as you are a bona fide conservative in most Art III courts. The few there are on the Supreme Court shouldn't give you that impression. Kennedy isn't conservative in the least, he just respects the concept of individual liberty enough to have known the mandate was pants... just in time for us to learn that Roberts is a doof (seriously, I hope Roberts was watching when Feinstein made a joke of his "presumption of constitutionality" fancy by explicitly dis mailing that constitutionality even figured into the legislative process).

Kelo was another good example of the Supreme Court being wrong.


As recently as 10-15 years ago, the Obamacare case wouldnt have made it to the SCOTUS. And yes, Kennedy is a conservative. Perhaps not to your ideological satisfation, but he's a reliable conservative vote. Even the liberal justices have become more lower-case "conservative" (read corporate friendly) - replacing Stevens with Kagan, for example.

[MichiGator2002]

As recently as 10-15 years ago, the Obamacare case wouldnt have made it to the SCOTUS. And yes, Kennedy is a conservative. Perhaps not to your ideological satisfation, but he's a reliable conservative vote. Even the liberal justices have become more lower-case "conservative" (read corporate friendly) - replacing Stevens with Kagan, for example.

If you consider "conservative" jurisprudence synonymous with "corporate-friendly", I can see why we aren't going to come to an understanding here.

[gator996]

So, Mich...

Is Obamacare constitutional or unconstitutional right now?

:laugh:

[MichiGator2002]

So, Mich...

Is Obamacare constitutional or unconstitutional right now?

:laugh:

It has been adjudicated as constitutional on the issue of the taxing power. Ambiguous whether or not the commerce clause issue could be called resolved in favor of the law. There are other grounds upon which it should and will be challenged that won't have ripened yet.

Was the Court right? No. It is just that when they're wrong, it is still binding. That is their special power.

Oh, scandal! Oh, controversy! "Carmina Burana" rising in the background!

[wgbgator]

You could have just said yes. :)

[MichiGator2002]

You could have just said yes. :)

People asked if they still beat their wives could give unqualified yes/no answers as well. And if they are morons, they might just do.

[MichiGator2002]

Interesting, though, how we perceive the nature of the question differently. To you, the "yes" is just that the Court's ruling controls, that it can be enforced upon others. To me, an unqualified yes would have meant that the Court was right. Primacy given to force in one instance, and to truth in the latter. It is sort of the Hobbesean vs. Augustinean conflict.

[wgbgator]

Good lord, I was just being funny. I thought the emoticon conveyed that.

[gator996]

It has been adjudicated as constitutional on the issue of the taxing power. Ambiguous whether or not the commerce clause issue could be called resolved in favor of the law. There are other grounds upon which it should and will be challenged that won't have ripened yet.

Was the Court right? No. It is just that when they're wrong, it is still binding. That is their special power.

Oh, scandal! Oh, controversy! "Carmina Burana" rising in the background!




...Yeah, tell that to the GOP that has tried 30+ times to repeal it.


Since nothing else besides passing more abortion laws & threatening to shut down the gov't seem to be the conservative agenda when will governing become the #1 focus for awhile and not fighting lost court cases?

Anybody seen a jobs bill out of Boehner & Co. since the 2010 midterms?

Since it was what the whole party ran on...


:whoa:

[MichiGator2002]

I am tired of them threatening to "shut down" the federal government too. Get on with it, already.

[HudsonGator]

Scary what the teaparty can support in a candidate...


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/13/1712431/jim-bridenstine-supreme-court/
GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn’t Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bridenstine-300x220.jpg


Still smarting over last year’s ruling upholding Obamacare, freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, didn’t have the heart to correct Bridenstine’s peculiar view of the Court’s role.


BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate


So this guy is saying Heller doesn't mean anything. Interesting.

[HudsonGator]

He isn't saying they've been occassional wrong on an issue...he's dismissing their role as the "Supreme Court"...


This is the same exact argument posed by Rand Paul right after the Obamacare decision...


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-repeats-its-still-not-constitutional-127702.html


Rand Paul repeats: It's still not constitutional

Rand Paul drew some attention Thursday when he declared the Supreme Court was flat wrong about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and that "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

The Kentucky senator repeats and expands upon the argument in a National Review column today:


[W]ith the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.

Make no mistake: Obamacare is not constitutional. As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, Americans, whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product — health insurance — or pay a penalty.

Emphasis added. While the role of the Court is, as a matter of literal fact, to declare by majority opinion what is and is not constitutional, there's also a long history of thought on what makes a Court decision legitimate and viable in the eyes of the public. Paul's argument is that because the Court got it wrong, the defense of the Constitution will have to depend on the people the Court governs.


Obamacare
Row v Wade
Voting Rights Act


And the list grows for GOP court cases lost but still litigating until the end of time...

That's a sword that cuts both ways, e.g. Heller.

[HudsonGator]

Quit worrying about the ACA, once we get single-payer (Medicare for all), it won't matter.

[MichiGator2002]

Quit worrying about the ACA, once we get single-payer (Medicare for all), it won't matter.

We will all be too screwed to care at that point, true enough. Everybody sill be covered and not having to pay at the point of sale for their diabetes treatment. Of course, it will be much more likely to be an amputation than insulin at that point, but, hey, it will be fair.

[HudsonGator]

They are doing wonderful things with prosthetics these days.

[g8rjd]

As Justice Breyer has regularly quipped, "We are right because we are last, we are not necessarily last becaue we are right."

That being said, if he feels so strongly about it, I recommend to Representative Bridenstein to willfully violate any law he thinks it is unconstitutional, despite the Supreme Court's ruling (or other court's rulings) to the contrary. I am sure he will suffer no consequences in light of his clear determination that the law is unconstitutional.

And, if he commits a crime or obtains financial liablity in doing so, he can just say, "But the law is unconstitutional TO ME!" I assure you, that defense works ALL THE TIME. :roll:

Honestly, this is one of the things I find so offensive about this new brand of libertarianism masking in the Republican party. The answer is always, "Well, I don't have to respect our institutions, even if I'm a part of them and lose."

[brainstorm]

As Justice Breyer has regularly quipped, "We are right because we are last, we are not necessarily last becaue we are right."

That being said, if he feels so strongly about it, I recommend to Representative Bridenstein to willfully violate any law he thinks it is unconstitutional, despite the Supreme Court's ruling (or other court's rulings) to the contrary. I am sure he will suffer no consequences in light of his clear determination that the law is unconstitutional.

And, if he commits a crime or obtains financial liablity in doing so, he can just say, "But the law is unconstitutional TO ME!" I assure you, that defense works ALL THE TIME. :roll:

Honestly, this is one of the things I find so offensive about this new brand of libertarianism masking in the Republican party. The answer is always, "Well, I don't have to respect our institutions, even if I'm a part of them and lose."

What am I missing - is Bridenstine "libertarian"? I can certainly say that I lean heavily in that direction and respect the SCOTUS - it is constitutional and makes sense in our system. That doesn't mean I like all of their decisions but respect their role.

[g8rjd]

What am I missing - is Bridenstine "libertarian"? I can certainly say that I lean heavily in that direction and respect the SCOTUS - it is constitutional and makes sense in our system. That doesn't mean I like all of their decisions but respect their role.

Then perhaps you are the "old brand," rather than the "new brand" that I criticized (and you did not bold).

[OaktownGator]

What the Supreme Court determines to be constitutional is the law of the land.

Doesn't mean they're always right.

[JerseyGator01]

They can only take so many cases though in Lawyerland. They can't look at everything, like in my case when a business was closed by a judge because the building was too big, although this building still houses another business of a similar nature.