IQ Test
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
Good lord. That's the dumbest letter I've ever read. It's mind bogglingly stupid. I maintain AOC is the lefts MTG. It's all ideology and narrative and no reality.
The secondary stupidity there is the Article III stuff. Congress can't strip the SCOTUS of jurisdiction. They can strip other federal courts of jurisdiction but not the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS' jurisdiction is laid out in the constitution.
Lock up the mother now
striker42
Well-known member
[tw]1547694119769624579[/tw]
She needs to go back and read Marbury v Madison. The holding of that case was literally that Congress did not have the power to change the SCOTUS' jurisdiction. Congress had tried to expand the SCOTUS original jurisdiction and the court held that it is up to the courts to interpret the constitution and in doing so held that the constitution does not give Congress the power to amend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that jurisdiction is set within the Constitution. The question of whether Congress has the power to change the SCOTUS' jurisdiction has been settled for nearly 220 years.
She needs to go back and read Marbury v Madison. The holding of that case was literally that Congress did not have the power to change the SCOTUS' jurisdiction. Congress had tried to expand the SCOTUS original jurisdiction and the court held that it is up to the courts to interpret the constitution and in doing so held that the constitution does not give Congress the power to amend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that jurisdiction is set within the Constitution. The question of whether Congress has the power to change the SCOTUS' jurisdiction has been settled for nearly 220 years.
Last edited:
Tapate50
Well-known member
Certainly making her case.
striker42
Well-known member
I have to go back and amend what I said as once I looked into what she was saying, it's more complex. She's arguing for jurisdiction stripping but like most things she argues, she doesn't really understand it. First, Marbury v Madison established it is the SCOTUS that gives the final word on the constitution and that Congress cannot expand or contract the court's original jurisdiction (cases that are files directly in the Supreme Court, most commonly disputes between states). It did not address the appellate power of the court, a distinction I missed originally.
Article III grants the SCOTUS its jurisdiction. In granting appellate jurisdiction it states, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It's this exceptions and regulations language that is the issue. It's a rarely used power of Congress and has, to my knowledge, only really ever once been the center of a case, the case Ex Parte McCardle. IIRC, that case involved someone who was imprisoned during Reconstruction arguing that the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional. Congress, afraid the court would strike down large portions of the Reconstruction Acts, passed a law stripping the court of appellate jurisdiction in such matters. The court held it had no jurisdiction as a result.
First off, the idea of jurisdiction stripping is insane. It makes court packing look cuddly. It would essentially be an attempt to break the court system. Congress has so rarely used this power because relatively few people are stupid enough to try it.
Second, it's not as cut and dry as AOC makes it seem. The problem with AOC's position is that this part of the Constitution hasn't really been interpreted and it isn't terribly clear. One of the chief arguments is that the Court not Congress is the final arbiter of the Constitution. This has long been the case. The argument is that Congress can't use the power to make an exception to subvert the Court's role as the arbiter of the Constitution.
Also, there's the argument that amendments like the Bill of Rights have constrained Congress' power when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution. Without the courts enforcing the Bill of Rights, Congress could completely ignore it. The only way to give teeth to the Bill of Rights is to have the power of judicial review.
If Congress ever tried this, I imagine the Courts would strike down the statute stating that the exceptions clause doesn't apply to cases of constitutional interpretation. I actually think that's a good result.
So I withdraw my previous statement's about AOC being completely off base about Congress' authority to amend the SCOTUS' jurisdiction. It's a nuanced and little explored area of the law. However, now that I have looked into it fully, AOC is absolutely insane to put it forward especially when Congress already has the power to pass statutes protecting what AOC wants protected on its own.
Article III grants the SCOTUS its jurisdiction. In granting appellate jurisdiction it states, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It's this exceptions and regulations language that is the issue. It's a rarely used power of Congress and has, to my knowledge, only really ever once been the center of a case, the case Ex Parte McCardle. IIRC, that case involved someone who was imprisoned during Reconstruction arguing that the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional. Congress, afraid the court would strike down large portions of the Reconstruction Acts, passed a law stripping the court of appellate jurisdiction in such matters. The court held it had no jurisdiction as a result.
First off, the idea of jurisdiction stripping is insane. It makes court packing look cuddly. It would essentially be an attempt to break the court system. Congress has so rarely used this power because relatively few people are stupid enough to try it.
Second, it's not as cut and dry as AOC makes it seem. The problem with AOC's position is that this part of the Constitution hasn't really been interpreted and it isn't terribly clear. One of the chief arguments is that the Court not Congress is the final arbiter of the Constitution. This has long been the case. The argument is that Congress can't use the power to make an exception to subvert the Court's role as the arbiter of the Constitution.
Also, there's the argument that amendments like the Bill of Rights have constrained Congress' power when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution. Without the courts enforcing the Bill of Rights, Congress could completely ignore it. The only way to give teeth to the Bill of Rights is to have the power of judicial review.
If Congress ever tried this, I imagine the Courts would strike down the statute stating that the exceptions clause doesn't apply to cases of constitutional interpretation. I actually think that's a good result.
So I withdraw my previous statement's about AOC being completely off base about Congress' authority to amend the SCOTUS' jurisdiction. It's a nuanced and little explored area of the law. However, now that I have looked into it fully, AOC is absolutely insane to put it forward especially when Congress already has the power to pass statutes protecting what AOC wants protected on its own.
striker42
Well-known member
I think they probably could. The only power Congress could use to do it is the Commerce Clause. There's a pretty good argument that there is an interstate market for abortions. If Congress wanted to it could probably preempt all state regulations on abortion. There's a far better argument for it than a lot of things.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I dunno, sturg was pointing out how dumb some congresswomen was for saying we dont' really know what the founders meant. It sounds like that's what you're saying
(PS. You're right, I'm just making fun of sturg)
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
sturg33
I
Lol that's ok defund the police will take care of it
striker42
Well-known member
Just a fun aside, there's actually a school of thought that the comma in "both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions" is a grammar mistake. Some scholars believe the Framers were actually trying to say that the SCOTUS had complete jurisdiction for appeals of law but that Congress could create exceptions to their jurisdiction on questions of fact. The argument is that the framers worked extremely hard to create an independent judiciary and wouldn't have hobbled it by allowing Congress to strip it of its jurisdiction to hear appeals on questions of law.
Questions of fact, however, both then and now are generally left up to trial courts. The whole point of a trial is to determine what the facts are so a limiting of the SCOTUS' ability to determine issues of fact on appeal would be a perfectly reasonable position for the Framers.
I personally don't believe this. I think the Framers were fallible as any other human and made some decisions with the Constitution that weren't terribly smart. I think the intention was to allow Congress to carve out some areas to be left to state courts who had much more independent judiciaries then than they do now. I don't think the Framers intended this to be a power that could wholesale strip the SCOTUS of jurisdiction but I also don't buy it was only intended to be for questions of fact.
The ultimate point is that the Constitution can be so difficult to interpret that theories of grammar mistakes can actually take root.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
They don't want a nuanced law. Everything they've come up with so far has been on demand until the moment of birth. They'll lose bigly if they do that.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Sure . I mean why not? She had a period, experienced the ups and downs of puberty as a female… experienced the heartache of losing a job a less qualified man and gets paid less
For the same job... Of course she deserves this.
