Redstate

were I advising the City, I'd wait out most of the 90 days to petition for cert to see how the Supremes resolve the DC gun case before making that decision.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

have had an effect on persuading some of the other members on some issues?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

not the Supremes. Interestingly, one of the judges joining this opinion is Jose Cabranes, who was sometimes mentioned, esp. in the Clinton years, as a SCOTUS short-lister (he and Judge Robert Katzmann, who dissented but also thought the statute barred the lawsuit, are Clinton appointees; Senior Judge Roger Miner, who wrote the opinion, is a Reagan appointee).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

putting their fingers in the wind, realizing that membership at SCOTUS has changed and therefore modifying what they are doing...knowing that it would get knocked down by SCOTUS?

Erik

I was at an argument a few months ago in the 2d Cir where one of the judges basically told the plaintiffs that they really didn't want the court to accept their main argument because they'd open a circuit split and invite the Supreme Court to get involved, in an area of law where they have not been friendly to plaintiffs of late.

That said, at the end of the day these are life-tenured federal judges too. They may keep one eye on potential reversal but they will by and large call them by their own lights.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Thanks for the response. Sounds like the selection of SCOTUS does have an impact throughout the judiciary...not just in right to life but also in weapons cases. And likely in many more constitutional decisions.

Food for thought.

Erik

decision reversals and you're out rule! Having lifetime appointments is a two edged sword. It does have the advantage of insulating them, to some degree, from the vagaries of politics. This being a nation 'of the people, by the people and for the people' or something like that those lifetimes appointees are too insulated from the people from whom they derive their authority.

Maybe we need a 'Parliamentary Judiciary'! When the people feel judges are getting out of line they could call for a confidence vote thereby affirming the peoples consent to be governed. No confidence? You're out and a new judge comes in.

The last thing we want is a court overshadowed by the passions of the unruly mob. Or judges who tack to the prevailing wind or pervert justice out of fear of retribution from those with lots of money or political connections.

Rather, we need a more consistent adherence to judicial restraint and more deference to the duly-elected legislature.

And Rightly So!

we should not allow the unruly mob to choose their leaders and instead let the enlightened and educated elite make those decisions for us! Maybe we should limit voting to a limited number of people who can make enlightened choices! Perhaps only people with law degrees from prestigious universities! The biggest problem with law is that laws are written by lawyers!

When government ceases to fear the governed tyranny begins!

The "people" only elected their local reps, who elected the next rank up, who elected the next rank up...

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

...rather than a pure democracy. Our founders also set up three branches of government with divided powers as well as two legislative houses. The legislative contains elected representatives plus an elected President. The federal judiciary are nominated by the executive, approved by the Senate, and given lifetime terms. All these were to buffer the operation of our government from the the tyranny of the majority.

Again, our system was not a Platonic society built on the rule of an "enlightened elite" but rather a system that buffers against evil in humans (and especially the despotism inherent in elites, e.g. the British monarchy).

But we also see the evil of the "unruly mob" as exposed in the French Revolution and passed down through their bastard progency, such as the Fascist Brownshirts or Sudan today.

No I'm talking about protecting our liberties both from an "enlightened elite" as well as from the evil of mobs.

And Rightly So!

have become a de facto 'Judiciary Monarchy' ruling by judicial fiat. Justices, of any stripe, have no accountability to the people. 'We the people' have no recourse except to hope (and pray) that sometime in the unforeseeable future a case, with merit, backed by someone with really deep pockets, will somehow wind its way through the legal system, land at the feet of the Supreme Court be heard fairly and with no regard to precedent (re: 'stare decisis') rule the previous ruling null and void! That makes the odds of evolution look believble. Or are we to expect that some 'enlightened' justice would convince the other members of the Court to hear a case 'sua sponte' and miraculously overturn a prior 'bad' decision? That makes evolutionary odds seem like a slam dunk in comparison!

Congress, technically, has some recourse but would be loathe to actually use it except under really egregious circumstances. Maybe if one of the justices pulls out a fully automatic weapon from under his robes and starts spraying the courtroom with gunfire Congress might wake up and actually impeach the judge. I don't see a sitting federal judge at the higher levels ever being impeached because he rules against the will of the people.

The three branches are supposed to provide 'checks and balances' but those began to erode with 'Marbury v. Madison'. I'll state it as plainly as possible:

The federal judiciary is currently accountable to no one.

I'm not advocating a 'tabula rasa' approach to changing the legal system. I'm just saying that we must, if we are to survive as a nation, change the system to make the judiciary accountable to 'the people' who are the source of their authority

Political Power
"..this power has its original only from compact and agreement, and the mutual consent of those who make up the community." -John Locke 2nd treatise sect 171

Congress has has other options in the recourse department.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

may have Constitutional authority to take other action but they risk retribution from the all powerful court by action or inaction. Silence speaks loudly! The only way to prevent "revenge" would be to replace the entire bench at once. You can just barely get the senators to agree on mundane things. We can just barely get them to agree to fill a vacancy! How are you going to convince them to replace all the justices all at once and if you do there'll be h**l to pay from someone, somewhere!

Congress has the power to create and abolish courts (with one exception). Congress also has the power of the purse. Each of these powers are beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

the diseased thinking of Bloomburg. You could far more easily make the argument that eco-libs and ehtanol subsidies (and the corn lobby, since you don't actually need corn -- and it is in fact not even the best source -- for ethanol) is actually directly responsible for the diverting of food and the rising prices.

I had not heard that. I remember that he was weighing his options running fore Pres as an I.

Good to know that we have SOME standards in the party.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Here's to hoping Governor Rudy smacks him around in that race.

To extremism in defense of liberty!

Rudy and his bullhorn will PWN Bloomie and his billions.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J