not explicitly but they have almost no enumerated powers in the constitution; without marbury v. madison the courts are effectively useless as a check to any other branch
The Supreme Court's function of "judicial review" is not enshrined in the Constitution. It was self-made, and so in a Hamiltonian sense Whittaker is not really that far from the mark. It's a minority view, but it is a view.
the new acting AG thinks we should revisit Marbury vs Madison??????
Man where the fuck does Trump even find these people
A good question to ask is what the hell does this guy think a judge is supposed to do in the case that the law as written by congress is in direct violation of the constitution? Just shrug and kick the can back down to the lower courts or congress?
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
No, it's definitely not. My American Gov classes made it pretty damn clear that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are all equal checks against each other. If two of them over step, then the third can tell them to chill the fuck out. That's the entire reason our government is setup this way and why any one party have a supermajority is never a good thing. It's all supposed to be equally balanced out.
The fact that this idiot thinks the judicial branch is inferior to the other two, and that the New Deal was somehow a bad thing pretty much screams that he's a moronic scumbag.
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Hey toss this in the "Holy SHIT this guy should not have any oversight into the Mueller probe" evidence pile. Courtesy of Ned Price, former CIA intelligence officer.
I mean, I thought that was true but A. I'm a bug doctor not a law doctor and B. I'm very tired and C. I also honestly can't believe how comprehensively stupid the things posted by our new AG(?) have been
The Supreme Court's function of "judicial review" is not enshrined in the Constitution. It was self-made, and so in a Hamiltonian sense Whittaker is not really that far from the mark. It's a minority view, but it is a view.
"What happens if these laws conflict" was, by my understanding, well understood to be the job of judges at the time, and so is covered by literally the first sentence of article III stating SCOTUS holds supreme judicial power.
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
no
it's a highly radical interpretation of the constitution
A highly radical interpretation would be that the 2nd amendment should allow us to store nukes in the basement. This seems more like he's never even read the fucking thing,
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
He's not wrong in that that the Constitution does not really give SCOTUS the huge authority it wields now. Judicial Review is a power Marshall basically gave himself in the Marbury decision (ironically, by striking down a law expanding the courts' powers).
However, relitigating Marbury would basically pull the rug from under 200 years of constitutional law, so it's difficult to imagine anyone doing it.
The Supreme Court's function of "judicial review" is not enshrined in the Constitution. It was self-made, and so in a Hamiltonian sense Whittaker is not really that far from the mark. It's a minority view, but it is a view.
it wasn't "self-made" so much as utterly obvious and so broadly and universally assumed to be true based on English Common Law that Marbury vs Madison was only necessary when people saw a technically correct loophole and tried to exploit it...
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
He's not wrong in that that the Constitution does not really give SCOTUS the huge authority it wields now. Judicial Review is a power Marshall basically gave himself in the Marbury decision (ironically, by striking down a law expanding the courts' powers).
However, relitigating Marbury would basically pull the rug from under 200 years of constitutional law, so it's difficult to imagine anyone doing it.
not taking a dig at you at all, just chuckling at myself when reading the bolded part.
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
no
it's a highly radical interpretation of the constitution
A highly radical interpretation would be that the 2nd amendment should allow us to store nukes in the basement. This seems more like he's never even read the fucking thing,
"Haha silly me, I've been holding it upside down the whole time!"
The Supreme Court's function of "judicial review" is not enshrined in the Constitution. It was self-made, and so in a Hamiltonian sense Whittaker is not really that far from the mark. It's a minority view, but it is a view.
it wasn't "self-made" so much as utterly obvious and so broadly and universally assumed to be true based on English Common Law that Marbury vs Madison was only necessary when people saw a technically correct loophole and tried to exploit it...
The constitution is really vague on so many things because ti assumes everyone reading it has a encyclopedic knowledge of Common Law
To do what? A House committee investigator can't convene grand juries unless I am mistaken. And they don't need him to hold hearings. They could charge people with perjury before a committee I guess...
BREAKING: Jeff Sessions has resigned as attorney general. Matthew Whittaker has been named as Acting Attorney General. Whittaker has publicly described how he would strangle the investigation. The Nobody Is Above the Law network demands that Whittaker immediately commit not to assume supervision of the investigation. Our hundreds of response events are not being launched yet, but will be triggered if this demand is not met, or another red line is crossed. We will update this pague as the situation develops.
The.....courts aren't supposed to be the "inferior" branch of government...are they?
That doesn't seem right but also I technically never took civics
No, it's definitely not. My American Gov classes made it pretty damn clear that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are all equal checks against each other. If two of them over step, then the third can tell them to chill the fuck out. That's the entire reason our government is setup this way and why any one party have a supermajority is never a good thing. It's all supposed to be equally balanced out.
The fact that this idiot thinks the judicial branch is inferior to the other two, and that the New Deal was somehow a bad thing pretty much screams that he's a moronic scumbag.
this is a nice sentiment but it's basically retroactive justification; the framers pretty clearly intended the legislature to be the superior branch (and the judiciary barely to be a branch at all)
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
If Whitaker was forced to recuse now that would be exactly the kind of half-baked failed plan I've come to expect from this administration.
Isn't recusal voluntary? Can you force someone to recuse themselves?
No, it can't be literally forced. I think the closest you would see is Whitaker caving to overwhelming pressure from Congress and/or DOJ ethics officials.
The hilarious outcome, per OremLK's "half-baked" comment above, would be if Whitaker immediately says, "Of course I'm recusing myself, it's only appropriate."
Posts
I believe the description is that we have three “co-equal” branches of government.
Now, my major was biology and not English; but it sure seems to me that the judiciary was not designed to be “inferior” by the founding fathers.
Federalist Society, usually.
A good question to ask is what the hell does this guy think a judge is supposed to do in the case that the law as written by congress is in direct violation of the constitution? Just shrug and kick the can back down to the lower courts or congress?
You start with the bottom of the barrel, then you cut a hole in that and reach into the pit of refuse the barrel was supposed to cover.
No, it's definitely not. My American Gov classes made it pretty damn clear that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are all equal checks against each other. If two of them over step, then the third can tell them to chill the fuck out. That's the entire reason our government is setup this way and why any one party have a supermajority is never a good thing. It's all supposed to be equally balanced out.
The fact that this idiot thinks the judicial branch is inferior to the other two, and that the New Deal was somehow a bad thing pretty much screams that he's a moronic scumbag.
There is no "inferior" branch. That's the whole point of "balance of power" or "equal branches".
FFS it's called balance of power.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
"What happens if these laws conflict" was, by my understanding, well understood to be the job of judges at the time, and so is covered by literally the first sentence of article III stating SCOTUS holds supreme judicial power.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
no
it's a highly radical interpretation of the constitution
A highly radical interpretation would be that the 2nd amendment should allow us to store nukes in the basement. This seems more like he's never even read the fucking thing,
Let’s not get optimistic. This is the shit we’ve been bracing for. Until we find out otherwise we need to be preparing to fight this
He's not wrong in that that the Constitution does not really give SCOTUS the huge authority it wields now. Judicial Review is a power Marshall basically gave himself in the Marbury decision (ironically, by striking down a law expanding the courts' powers).
However, relitigating Marbury would basically pull the rug from under 200 years of constitutional law, so it's difficult to imagine anyone doing it.
Should've held on to more PTO...
More like deconstitutionalization.
they've had this planned out for a while
it wasn't "self-made" so much as utterly obvious and so broadly and universally assumed to be true based on English Common Law that Marbury vs Madison was only necessary when people saw a technically correct loophole and tried to exploit it...
not taking a dig at you at all, just chuckling at myself when reading the bolded part.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
The whole logic behind Sessions' recusal was that he was a big part of the Trump campaign, which is itself a major target of Mueller.
no, it was very specifically because he lied about meeting with the russian ambassador when he was being confirmed
"Haha silly me, I've been holding it upside down the whole time!"
Im so tired all the time.
The constitution is really vague on so many things because ti assumes everyone reading it has a encyclopedic knowledge of Common Law
NBC reporter.
Whitaker's conflicts of interest piling up. This is obscene. Please tell me there's rumblings of protest tomorrow.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
To do what? A House committee investigator can't convene grand juries unless I am mistaken. And they don't need him to hold hearings. They could charge people with perjury before a committee I guess...
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I need a lawyer to tell me whether something like this would normally be grounds for recusal or just 'lawyering is a small world; this stuff happens'
Yes, I'm actively rumbling. From the looks of /r/politics' megathread I'm not the only one.
Isn't recusal voluntary? Can you force someone to recuse themselves?
this is a nice sentiment but it's basically retroactive justification; the framers pretty clearly intended the legislature to be the superior branch (and the judiciary barely to be a branch at all)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No, it can't be literally forced. I think the closest you would see is Whitaker caving to overwhelming pressure from Congress and/or DOJ ethics officials.
The hilarious outcome, per OremLK's "half-baked" comment above, would be if Whitaker immediately says, "Of course I'm recusing myself, it's only appropriate."
Recuse himself?