E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, July 3, 2015

The judicial branch is not the legislative branch

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Whatever you think about last week's decision on same-sex marriage, we should be very concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court. The real problem we face is not one court decision or another. The real problem we face is that for two generations, the Supreme Court has operated as a super-legislature rather than as a neutral body that interprets the law and the Constitution as written.

We have justices openly talking about public policy during legal arguments. Two especially egregious cases were when Stephen Breyer argued public policy when the court was considering the Fair Housing Act and when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was using public policy arguments to explain why campaign finance regulations should be upheld.

See http://wapo.st/1TUyj7J and http://nyti.ms/1LMQzuf for more.

The Supreme Court is not the legislative branch and should not even be considering public policy. The court's only role is to interpret the law and Constitution as written. When the Supreme Court behaves this way, and is allowed to behave this way by Congress and the President, we do not have a Constitutional republic envisioned by the founders of this nation. We have a judicial oligarchy. This means that nothing, including the Bill of Rights, is safe.

We need to demand that the other branches of government restrain the judiciary.

This means that impeachment must be on the table.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At July 3, 2015 at 6:37 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Funny how your side always hollers "impeachment" when things don't go your way, but "the Right" cheers when 5 justices appoint a president of the United States or ensure electoral corruption by voting for Citizens United. Where was your call for impeachment when "Justice" Thomas repeatedly rules in favor of companies that once employed him or now employ his wife, without recusing himself? This nonsense harks back to 1954 and beyond, reeking of absolute hypocrisy.