Thursday, September 23, 2004

Judicial Review Under Attack, Redux

Having failed to get the Senate to move on the first absurd law that threatens judicial review for the sake of a little self-righteous posturing, the House Republicans are at it again. This time, they want to limit the Court's jurisdiction over the Pledge. Read the Post's editorial here.

And you can read my comments on the first exercise in anti-Court cruelty here.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note in response to your previous column on judicial review. I agree with everything you said except for your prediction that the Court would reassert its power by striking down an anti-Judicial review law.

Unfortunately, Constiutionally speaking, it's perfectly within Congress's power to declare what is and is not under federal jurisdiction. To take a more innocuous example, it used to be that federal courts could hear suits between residents of 2 different states (diversity suits) if the amount in controversy was over $50,000. Then, by Congressional act, that amount was raised to $75,000, thereby decreasing federal jurisdiction.

These examples are much more despicable, but, I'm afraid, perfectly within Congress's power.

- Ben

Jason Mulgrew said...

intense!

love,
jason mulgrew
internet quasi-celebrity

Anonymous said...

Chirst, i can never understand why these people are so hellbent on protecting the facist piece of garbage known as the pledge of allegiance.

On second thought, actually i do.

- Miguel

Mike said...

Are we still fighting the Godless communists, or can we actually maybe get rid of the McCarthy-inspired "under God" portion of the pledge? I mean, I love God as much as the next occasional-Christian-usually-agnostic-the-universe-is-balanced-but-I-don't-know-how guy, but I think enough is enough. Besides, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and even if they did, I think the current court would uphold "under God" anyway. Oh well, both parties have lost their minds anyway.

Anonymous said...

Or how about getting rid of the pledge altogether. Countries which believe in freedom have no business of requiring their citizens to pledge their allegiance.

Anonymous said...

Anon: one of the most frequent arguments against removing "under god" has been the fact that people aren't required to recite it ('cause a state religion is okay as long as people don't literally have guns to their heads, right?).

Now, say what you will about a nonrequired pledge, or whether we should be pressuring minors to say it, or whether overzealous teachers sometimes "forget" the distinction between what's required and what's not, but in all honesty it's not supposed to be mandatory. Therefore, I think it's on the same level as a national anthem, a national flag, etc.

- Pierce

Andrew Collazzi said...

I was gonna comment on this post here, but it got so long, I decided to make it my own post.

http://andycoz.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_andycoz_archive.html#109709740885972163