Not really, Guinastasia, because in that case you had citizens and state governments attempting to resist a Supreme Court decision, whereas here we have a coordinate branch of the federal government attempting to inhibit the enforcement of a decision.
Pure posturing.
The Bushiviks have a huge political debt to the troglodyte right. Without the Gary Bauers, the Pat Robertsons, that ilk, he never would have gotten within spitting distance of the White House.
Trouble is, he hasn’t been able to really deliver on their agenda, and they’re getting antsy. Hence these grandstanding political gestures that say “Look we’re on your side, but these durned liberals keep thwarting God’s Will!”
Karl Rove dreams of a charismatic, sexy, young, photogenic figure rising up on the Religious Right, challenging GeeDubya’s hold on thier loyalty. He wakes up screaming.
Well this may be the first time Congress has tried the tactic, but its happened before from the executive branch side of things. Andrew Jackson, as I recall, was told by the Supreme Court to (IIRC on this bit) enforce treaties signed with Native American tribes. He basically told them to stuff it.
But isn’t this type of “negative appropriation” fairly normal? As just one example, while scanning the House web site for more information about this I found the following:
There were several other similar proposals debated the same day (July 25). If Hostettler’s amendment passes into law, is it likely that a marshal would serve papers in defiance of it? And wouldn’t knowing that a marhsal was unlikely to do so increase the likelihood of school or state court defiance of the original federal court order?
Here is Hostettler’s press release. Apparently at least 70 Democrats voted for this nonsense, since it passed the House 307-119. This may be meaningless grandstanding in this case, but it strikes me as an awfully dangerous precedent.
If the bill had any chance of actually limiting the Courts ability to rule and not just for show, I think there would have been a lot more opposition.
And students of history would be studying it for years to come like FDR’s “Court Packing” idea.
Isn’t there an argument that this proposal would breach the separation of powers? Sure, Congress can cut funding for the marshall service generally, and it wouldn’t raise an issue. But here, the proposal is that Congress can cut funding specifically to prevent the enforcement of particular court rulings on particular issues. Couldn’t it be argued that by singling out particular types of cases, Congress is interfereing with the functions of the judicial branch, by attempting to overrule particular decisions it disagrees with?
By contrast, the example jklann gives strikes me as innocuous: Congress has apparently passed a law governing the reimbursement for those expenses, which is clearly within its authority as the legislative branch, and then has added a condition to the appropriation of money that it will only be paid in accordance with that statutory provision.
I totally agree that this proposal would breach the separation of powers. However, proponents of this law would argue that the law is designed to respond to Supreme Court breaches of separation of powers. That is, some SC decisions are really creating law, not just interpreting the Constitution. The proponents would see this new bill as fighting fire with fire.
The other two branches of government are subject to various checks and balances. The lower courts are checked by appeal to higher courts. However, there are virtually no checks and balances on improper Supreme Court decisions. One conceivable remedy would be a Consitutional Amendment. Another would be to impeach the offending Justices, followed by the appointment of new Justices who would reverse the wrong decision. These two approaches are impractical. This bill is an effort to find a practical way to put some sort of checks and balance on what the proponents see as two outrageously improper SC decisions.
Yes to the first, no to the second. A cry for impeachment goes up from somebody every single time a Federal judge issues an unpopular ruling, which is pretty much monthly. In 1989 a lot of vets and smalltown conservatives were screaming to impeach the majority justices in Texas v. Johnson, the flag burning case (which would have ironically resulted in the impeachment of Scalia). That just plain isn’t going to happen. You can’t impeach Federal judges for doing their jobs.
Congress has considerable power in the spending clause, but this ain’t one of them. If Congress were allowed to direct executive officers recieving federal funds to enforce the constitution in any manner it sees fit regardless of Federal court decisions it would be tantamount to allowing Congress coequal power of judicial review. It will only work if the President goes along with it, and the President doesn’t really need Congress’ approval if he wants to ignore Supreme Court decisions and be a prick, e.g. Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act. This isn’t a practical effort at doing anything at all, save making a symbolic gesture to appeal to a voter bloc.
Hmmm, I’m very interested in this issue- Trying to gather more info- can anybody link to articles?? My cnn search came up dry and I’m in a bit of a rush. Thanks!
Here’s the cite that was omitted from the OP. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030728-113551-1043r.htm
The Jeffersonians tried impeaching a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, solely because of his politics. That effort failed and it has not been tried again. There really weren’t any high crimes or misdemeanors brought against Chase. It’s just that he was a Federalist holdover and somewhat obnoxious.
Jefferson’s supporters did successfully impeach and remove a lower Federal court judge, but that guy was perceived as being a bit of a nut anyway.
Why not just pass a resolution prohibiting the courts from using any funds allocated to them by Congress to make any decision that displeases them?
Can I demand than none of my taxes be used to pay for this foolishness?
december
This line of argument makes no sense. The Supreme Court exists as a check on Congressional power. So calling Congress ignoring them a “check” is a misnomer; it’s a check on a check, and is therefore an anti-check.
BTW, does anyone have a list of who voted how?
Remember, kids, it’s only “judicial activism” when it’s a decision you don’t like. :rolleyes:
It skirts the lines, but I think it is constitutional.
Definitely not. They seem to be throwing a temper tantrum over the possibility that the Supreme Court will make a decision they don’t like, by making a pre-emptive budget slash.
For the most part, No. I think MOST schools, unlike Congress, won’t ignore the Supreme Court.
I disagree. I believe SCOTUS has more or less decided that impeachment is a nonjusticiable topic left to the perview of Congress alone. See Nixon v. US 506 US 224 (1993). You can impeach a Federal judge for bad behavior, and that is defined by Congress, or more exaclty, by what 2/3 of the Senate believes is impeachable conduct.
Really? considering that’s one of the reasons for an amending formula in the Constitution, and that several constitutional amendments have been passed to overturn Supreme Court decisions, that seems a bit difficult to argue, both from the perspective of original intent and historical example:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li]
[li]XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li]
[li]XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li]
[li]XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li]
[li]XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874);[/li]
[li]XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li]
[li]XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/li][/ul]
As a civil officer, “bad behavior” as impeachable conduct for a federal judge is defined in the Constitution as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Nixon wasn’t arguing that he was impeached on improper grounds (he was in Federal prison at the time on two counts of making false statements to a Federal grand jury), but by an improper procedure, i.e. by a senate committee rather than the entire senate in violation of the Impeachment Trial Clause of the Constitution. If he was being impeached for a good faith exercise of his official duties and argued that there was no evidence or even allegation that he had committed treason, bribery, or any other crime, it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court would have held that his conduct was unimpeachable under the Constitution.
Even if they didn’t, impeachment for a good faith exercise of official duties just isn’t going to happen. The impeachment process is deliberately byzantine to prevent spurious impeachments. Prior to three judges being impeached for serious crimes in a three year span in 1986, no federal judge had been impeached in fifty years, only ten judges had ever been impeached by the house, and only four convicted and removed from office. Federal judges have engaged in serious misconduct that didn’t arise to impeachable levels.
This is hardly new. Wasn’t it President Jackson (As Priam & Pravnick pointed out) that first said of a SCOTUS dec “They have made their decision- now let them enforce it.”?
Certainly Congress (along with the Prez) can decide how best to spend limited funds. Since arresting Principals that allow the Pledge is hardly as important as apprehending violent Felons, their decision isn’t even silly. I will grant it is political grandstanding.
However enforcement or not, I doubt if many Principals or School Board will ingore SCOTUS decisions.
The proponents are, as a matter of law, wrong. As was established about 190 years ago, it is emphatically the duty of the courts, and the courts alone, to say what the law is. Don’t this conservatives respect the well-established precedent of Marbury v. Madison??
So, these proponents’ opinion is of no merit and no relevance.
Why are they impractical? All that both require is getting enough people (in the first case, enough state legislators, and in the second, enough fellow Congressmen and Senators) to agree with these proponents. If they are unable to do either, it does not mean that the established remedies are “impractical” - instead it means that their position lacks the necessary support.
“Impractical” and “difficult” are not the same thing.
But the Constitution has already established the full set of checks and balances. An attempt to create a new one is, well, an attempt to amend the Constitution by means not allowed by the Constitution.
BTW, it is well established that courts can, in fact, direct how money is spent by both state and federal governments, pursuant to orders of the Court. Indeed, it happens all the time.
Sua