Thom Hartmann: Newt is right about the Supreme Court

Aside from the brief tangent into cookdom where Hartman says that Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas want the Supreme Court to run your lives, (actually in countless speeches they say that the court was never meant to be five of nine judges making decrees on how our society is run) this video is spot on and it is what I learned when I took Constitutional Law at IU under Judge Allen Sharp.

Thom Hartman:

I agree with Newt Gingrich. Not about politics, of course. But, Newt is right about the Supreme Court. And progressives should pay attention. On this, Gingrich agrees with former President Thomas Jefferson – and most of the other founders of this country. Let’s break it down. First, Newt’s assertion that the Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can’t do.

Here’s the exact language -“[T]he Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Yes, that’s what the Constitution says – in plain black and white. If Congress disagrees with – for example – the Citizens United decision, or the Bush v. Gore meeting – they can simply pass a law that says that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and that’s the end of that.

Why, you may ask, did the Founders write it this way? The answer is really simple. They wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people – and Congress is up for election every two years. It’s the body in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people. It’s where they wanted most of the power, which is why it’s defined in Article One of the Constitution – the first among equals. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to Mr. Jarvis, who thought Supreme Court justices should have the power to strike down laws, “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy….The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.”

Please read the Constitution. Nowhere in it does it say that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nowhere. And for the first fourteen years of our Republic, the Court never even considered the idea. As Newt pointed out, Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 -“[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever….It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”

But in 1803, a hard-right-wing Chief Justice named John Marshall ruled, in a case named Marbury versus Madison, that the Supreme Court could strike down laws as unconstitutional. President Jefferson went apoplectic. He wrote that if that decision wasn’t challenged by Congress: “[T]hen indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so [a suicide pact]. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.” But Marshall and the Court backed down, somewhat. For the next twenty years, he never again ruled a law unconstitutional. He never again said that a few unelected Judges were the Kings of America, with nobody who had the power to undo their decisions. But that’s what Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito want you to believe. They can make George W. Bush President, without any appeal. They can make money into speech, they can turn corporations into people, and the rest of us have no say in it.

And they’re wrong.

It’s not what the Constitution says. We don’t have kings in America, and it’s time to seriously debate and challenge the doctrine of Judicial Review – the claim by the Court itself that it has that power. Jefferson wrote – “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution… I will say, that ‘against this every man should raise his voice,’ and, more, should uplift his arm.” Why? Because, Jefferson said, “For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny….One single object…will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.” The power of We The People should be with the People and their elected officials, not 5 lawyers who have claimed the right to rule over every other branch of government.

Somebody tell Congress to wake up!

Sandra “Three Times a Day” Fluke turns out to be a radical pro-abortion activist….

UPDATE – Sandra Fluke: Catholic Institutions Should Pay for My Sex Change – LINK

Sandra Fluke says that as a law student she is poor that a Catholic University or an insurance company should be forced to give her birth control for free.

Sandra Fluke says that she uses $3,000 a year worth of birth control; CNS News and others ran the numbers and concluded that she would have to have sex 3 TIMES A DAY every day to use $3,000 worth.

So our friend Rush has a little fun with that statistic and makes jokes a parodies. One of the jokes was that if she wants to have that much sex and wants others to pay for it, are we not in essence paying her to have sex? If so she should post videos.

Rick Santorum, obviously forgetting that anyone who enters the political arena is fair game for jokes from just about everyone (I bet Jay Leno had a ball with this), condemned Rush for making the joke, which obviously had a very serious point behind it, which Rick also wimped out on commenting on.

Of course contraception is free at many health clinics and state run institutions, and that includes birth control; so this has nothing to do with who is going to pay for her insatiable sex habits, rather it is about going after the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and conscience. It is also an effort to close Catholic hospitals and clinics so that government can take one step closer at taking over the health care system (which Kathleen Sibelius just all but admitted that this is the administration goal). It is also important to keep in mind that the Obama Administration is trying to force Catholic institutions not just to provide free contraception, but also to provide free so called “morning after” abortion pills.

Sandra Fluke presented herself as just another average Catholic law student, but in reality she is the president of the radical pro-abortion group “Law Students for Reproductive Justice” (2). Fluke is absurd and should be called out on it.

Famed attorney Mark Levin comments: