Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004

[Andy_Stephenson]

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/9/2004--Introduced.

Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 - Authorizes Congress, if two thirds of each House agree, to reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court: (1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03920:@@@L&summ2=m&

[kiahzero]

1. ... That's just asking for a Constitutional crisis

The Supreme Court would rule such an Act unconstitutional. Congress would use it's power under the Act to trump the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court ruled that the Act was unenforcible.

[Leprechan29]

2. What if?

What if the constitutionality of the law itself was challenged? What would congress do then.

And another thing: congress already has the ability to overturn a SC decision - It's called amending the Constitution and it works if the need is great enough.

Just another effort by the WH to concentrate all the power in the presidency and with the collaborators in Congress.

[freetobegay]

3. The bastards have gone to far this time!

[K-W]

4. Is there any reason to think this is more than just a vanity bill?

Is there any real support for it?

[GoBucksBeatBush]

7. there are 25 cosponsors to it...

but that's not necessarily a whole lot, when you've got 435 members of the house. more indicative of serious support would be if there's a senate companion bill, which i didn't find.


electioneering bullshit, so the fucker from KY can go back home in october and tell his constituents that he's fighting the homaschexuals in massachussetts so they don't have to fight them in kentucky. or something to that effect.

[Democat]

5. Is there a part of the bill making it invalid if Dems take over congress?

This is extremist nonsense.

[GoBucksBeatBush]

6. hakuna matata

this is much ado about nothing.

1. this is clearly an unconstitutional act...even with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, this wouldn't even get heard, let alone decided up...a lower ct. would find it uncontitutional after about 3 seconds of deliberation, and that's all she wrote...you don't take a case like marbury vs. madison, decided in 1803 and upon which just about every subsequent constitutional interpretation case is decided, and let some punk congressman tell it to fuck off.

2. without so-called "judicial activism" brown v. board of education would never have been decided. judicial activism is all in the eyes of the political ideologue.

3. in reality...this bill won't ever see the light of day. it's been referred to two committees, out of which it has to pass before it can go to the house floor...the judiciary committee has 838 pending pieces of legislation that die at the end of the session if not acted upon. don't see that that happening. furthermore, the bill is actually in a subcommittee of the judiciary comm, which itself has 60 or so bills to consider. also, the bill is in the rules committee (where they make the rules for any debate that may occurr over the bill), and there are over 200 bills on the rules committee's docket. no senate companion bill (if there was, that may concern me a bit more, but refer to number 1, above)...no need to worry about his bit of pre-election grandstanding from the gentleman....errrr....fuckwad from kentucky.

[Scooter24]

8. This bill...

...is dangerous and won't go far. They are interpreting the "exceptions" clause as means of preventing the Supreme Court from doing its job. This bill allows the Congress to act as both legislature and judiciary by giving them judicial veto. This isn't allowed under the Constitution. Why not just abolish the Supreme Court then? It has been argued that the clause was intended to set rules of judicial procedure, not precedent. This was to prevent the abolishment of the USSC, thru means of insignificance, by the Legislative branch. Nobody knows for sure because the USSC has never ruled on its meaning or how it plays into the context of the constitution. To this day, the clause has never been used.

What many in Congress needs to understand is that an unfavorable ruling doesn't equate to judicial tyranny. They are acting like a bunch of crybabies.