Bobby Jindal proposes doing away with Supreme Court

[TLK Valentine]

I mentioned this over in my thread about Rick Santorum, but thought it deserved its own thread.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bobby-jindal-get-rid-of-scotus

Louisiana Gov, Bobby Jindal (R) on Friday suggested doing away with the Supreme Court during a speech in Iowa that followed the court's historic ruling on same-sex marriage.

"The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body," he told the crowd, as quoted by The Advocate newspaper. "If we want to save some money lets just get rid of the court."

So Bobby Jindal wants to do away with the Supreme Court because it makes decisions he doesn't like... but remember, boys and girls, Obama's the tyrant who doesn't respect the Constitution.

Thoughts?

 

[JustOneWay]

i said in another thread that this man stands no chance of becoming President.

His idiotic remarks reinforce my comment.

I feel bad for him.

 

[Paulos23]

He is mad because the court didn't go his way. And he doesn't want no federals tell him what to do.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thoughts?

Judges are occasionally removed from office by the electorate. Supreme Court justices are no exception.

The court changed multiple times in the first hundred years of the nation's history, largely because of bad behavior on the part of the judges. The last hundred and fifty years has been stable with nine justices, largely because the justices on the court have maintained the respect needed to validate their decisions. Unfortunately, that respect has eroded badly in recent years as a number of rulings from the court have been based on neither the constitution nor established law. Instead, the court has chosen to write new law. Whatever the merits of the laws they have chosen to write, doing so is not the Supreme Court's charter.

Bobby Jindal has a point ... though I personally believe that removal of individual justices by Congress would be the better plan.

 

[Albion]

He is mad because the court didn't go his way. And he doesn't want no federals tell him what to do.

...which is exactly what the Liberals do when the court doesn't rule their way. This really has nothing at all to do with the question before us.

 

[JustOneWay]

No judge has ever been kicked off the Supreme Court.

Then again, Jindal never said impeach, he said do away.

 

[JustOneWay]

...which is exactly what the Liberals do when the court doesn't rule their way. This really has nothing at all to do with the question before us.

Yes, and you will live with all the decisions, right?

 

[Albion]

Then again, Jindal never said impeach, he said do away.

Yes. ALL OF US here know that. What was said was that Jindal "has a point" although the poster you're referring to had a different idea about how to proceed.

 

[JustOneWay]

Yes. ALL OF US here know that. What was said was that he "has a point."

He has no point. He made a stupid comment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Bobby Jindal has a point ... though I personally believe that removal of individual justices by Congress would be the better plan.

So rather than do away with the entire Supreme Court, Jindal should just do away with those individual justices who don't vote the way he wants them to. Got it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

...which is exactly what the Liberals do when the court doesn't rule their way. This really has nothing at all to do with the question before us.

Name one liberal presidential contender (heck, name one liberal politician) who has ever -- ever -- proposed dissolving the Supreme Court at any time for any reason.

Just one will do.

 

[JustOneWay]

So rather than do away with the entire Supreme Court, Jindal should just do away with those individual justices who don't vote the way he wants them to. Got it.

Which would have a more partisan and stupid comment than what he actually said.

 

[Albion]

Name one liberal presidential contender (heck, name one liberal politician) who has ever -- ever -- proposed dissolving the Supreme Court at any time for any reason.

Just one will do.

Try to follow the discussion. Here's what was said and the reply to it--

"He is mad because the court didn't go his way. And he doesn't want no federals tell him what to do."

"...which is exactly what the Liberals do when the court doesn't rule their way. This really has nothing at all to do with the question before us."

Notice that there is no mention of dissolving the Supreme Court in that exchange.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Try to follow the discussion. Here's what was said and the reply to it--

"He is mad because the court didn't go his way. And he doesn't want no federals tell him what to do."

"...which is exactly what the Liberals do when the court doesn't rule their way. This really has nothing at all to do with the question before us."

Notice that there is no mention of dissolving the Supreme Court in that exchange.

So your point was merely "liberals get mad too."

Oh, the horror!

 

[Albion]

So your point was merely "liberals get mad too."

My point was that HIS comment wasn't very meaningful. Your reply here would seem to put you in agreement with my reaction.

 

[TheBarrd]

I think the point is, should SCOTUS have the authority to overrule the decisions of the various states? The people in those states had spoken...and the Supreme Court went over their heads.
Not that it matters...the full faith and credit clause would force them to acknowledge ssm anyway...

 

[TLK Valentine]

My point was that HIS comment wasn't very meaningful. Your reply here would seem to put you in agreement with my reaction.

The man publicly proposes dissolving the Supreme Court, but we should dismiss it because... he was just mad at the time?

Do you think that helps his campaign?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think the point is, should SCOTUS have the authority to overrule the decisions of the various states? The people in those states had spoken...and the Supreme Court went over their heads.

Which is exactly what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to do.

It's called the Supreme Court for a reason.

Not that it matters...the full faith and credit clause would force them to acknowledge ssm anyway...

Yeah, that darn Constitution -- Not to fret, tho: If Jindal's remarks are to be taken seriously (although the current argument is that they're not; he was just mad, don't you know), he's got a solution to that pesky thing.

 

[Albion]

I think the point is, should SCOTUS have the authority to overrule the decisions of the various states? The people in those states had spoken...and the Supreme Court went over their heads.
Not that it matters...the full faith and credit clause would force them to acknowledge ssm anyway...

A question arises in my mind about other state regulations. The various states have a wide range of rules concerning the ages of the bride and groom, including if parental permission is required at a certain age, etc. There may even be some variance on the degree of blood relationship. There is no uniformity on this among the states, so how does Justice Kennedy's logic square with that??

 

[Albion]

The man publicly proposes dissolving the Supreme Court, but we should dismiss it because

It's no more unthinkable than dozens of other changes that have been suggested about the way our country governs itself--doing away with the Electoral College, for example. Are you shocked and incredulous about that, too?