Rise of Fascism in the United States [SPLIT]

[Norri]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

I (or Trump) can say the law means anything I want. The courts alone are given the judicial power to judge my interpretation or misinterpretation of the "Laws of the United States".
If judging the meaning of the law against my interpretation or my actions is not given to court, then the court has no purpose in even existing. Who then has this power?
Judging the meaning of the law and whether something is legal or not according to that law, is like......the whole purpose of the court. Is it not?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases..arising under...the Laws of the United States..."

Unfortunately, for me at least, I’m having problems linking articles right now but I do wish to clear this up.

First if you look up Marbury v Madison the first thing you will learn is this was the birth of judicial review. That’s what the case has always been known for to those familiar with it. That is a fact. As I said above this is not the case to look to if you want to stop Trump, if he wasn’t such a piker he would be looking at it today. It is not in the constitution, not in any law and not even a Supreme Court precedent and as such is ripe for exploitation.

Second the judicial power does not extend to all cases since congress controls the courts docket. It extends to only those cases congress allows them to hear, with the exception to the disputes listed above. Cityboy-stl was kind enough to give us Article 3 sections 1&2 but left out section 3 known as the exceptions clause which gives congress the power to limit the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction which means congress can pass a law and deny the courts ability to review it.

I don’t know if that’s ever been done but it can be done. I’m sorry for the lack of links but if you wish to be enlightened you can find out for yourself.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Unfortunately, for me at least, I’m having problems linking articles right now but I do wish to clear this up.

First if you look up Marbury v Madison the first thing you will learn is this was the birth of judicial review. That’s what the case has always been known for to those familiar with it. That is a fact. As I said above this is not the case to look to if you want to stop Trump, if he wasn’t such a piker he would be looking at it today. It is not in the constitution, not in any law and not even a Supreme Court precedent and as such is ripe for exploitation.

Second the judicial power does not extend to all cases since congress controls the courts docket. It extends to only those cases congress allows them to hear, with the exception to the disputes listed above. Cityboy-stl was kind enough to give us Article 3 sections 1&2 but left out section 3 known as the exceptions clause which gives congress the power to limit the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction which means congress can pass a law and deny the courts ability to review it.

I don’t know if that’s ever been done but it can be done. I’m sorry for the lack of links but if you wish to be enlightened you can find out for yourself.

The court controls its own docket. Congress does not decide what cases any court decides to hear. Congress does not control the courts.
That's why the court is the third independent branch of government. Neither the Executive nor the Legislative branches can tell the courts what to do. Or they're not supposed to anyway.

Section 3 defines Treason and states that Congress has power to declare punishment for Treason.

The Constitution literally says all cases.

Continuing with Section 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

It is the job of courts to judge both the meaning and intent of Law when a case is brought before them.

 

[Norri]

You are correct and I was in error, it’s not in article 3 section 3, it’s in article 3 section 2 which you did not fully quote but I will. First off the ‘All Cases’ words that you are so fond of refer to those cases which the constitution gives the court original jurisdiction like disputes between states and matters concerning Ambassadors. They do not have original jurisdiction in any other cases.

Article 3 Section 2.

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public minsters and councils; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two states or more; between a state and a citizen of another state; between citizens of different states claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

“In all cases affecting ambassadors, and other public minsters and councils, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make”

I’ll leave the third paragraph out as it just says trials shall have a jury and cases will be tried in the state where the crime occurred.

I hope this clears things up for you, congress controls the courts except where the court has original jurisdiction.

 

[Norri]

City boy-stl what does the last words of the second paragraph mean to you……”with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make”

 

[opinterph]

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I think judicial review is enshrined in our system to such an extent that taking it away would require a constitutional amendment.

... Nearly half of the original thirteen states interpreted the Constitution as granting the judiciary the power of judicial review a scant handful of years after it was written and well before Marbury v Madison.

The Power of Judicial Review (ConstitutionUS.com)

Congress’s Power over Court Decisions: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein (Congressional Research Service; January 19, 2024)

 

[Norri]

I think judicial review is enshrined in our system to such an extent that taking it away would require a constitutional amendment.



Congress’s Power over Court Decisions: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein (Congressional Research Service; January 19, 2024)

You have it backwards to prevent it being taken away it would need to be enshrined in the constitution.

Nothing in the link you provided contradicts anything I have said unless you believe the word ‘seems’ is a synonym for the word does.

I will make my original point again Marbury should not give anyone comfort.

The constitution is silent on who has the authority to interpret laws which means if Trump declared that he would now be interpreting the laws that would not be an unconstitutional act. If anyone disagrees with this please give me the article and section number and I’ll shut up but failing that THE STATEMENT STANDS!

This is far more solid ground to stand on than anything Jeffery Clark came up with after the 2020 election.

Tradition is not the strongest leg to stand on and Stare Decisis is dead.

 

[cityboy-stl]

The Legislative Branch makes laws. The Executive Branch is supposed to faithfully execute the laws. The Judicial Branch interprets the law's meaning and intent, and rules on laws in case of Constitutionality or legal disputes. No where does the Constitution give the Executive Branch the power to manipulate, bend, or ignore the law at will. The Executive Branch is supposed to follow the rule of law as adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The rule of law applies to everyone. The President can't (isn't supposed to) twist the law to his own will to do something illegal. Although Trump (and you) think the President can interpret the law to mean anything he wants it to mean, the Constitution clearly gives the power to rule on the meaning and intent of the law to the Courts. FUCKING PERIOD.

 

[KaraBulut]

The Legislative Branch makes laws. The Executive Branch is supposed to faithfully execute the laws. The Judicial Branch interprets the law's meaning and intent, and rules on laws in case of Constitutionality or legal disputes. No where does the Constitution give the Executive Branch the power to manipulate, bend, or ignore the law at will. The Executive Branch is supposed to follow the rule of law as adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The rule of law applies to everyone. The President can't (isn't supposed to) twist the law to his own will to do something illegal. Although Trump (and you) think the President can interpret the law to mean anything he wants it to mean, the Constitution clearly gives the power to rule on the meaning and intent of the law to the Courts. FUCKING PERIOD.

Well... that's how it has been and until now, it's been "a norm".

The problem is that we're in abnormal times.

We have a group of conservative activists in the Federal Courts that have been allowed to be given lifetime appointments and who lied about "stare decisis" and "norms" in their Congressional hearings.

We also have a party that no longer has faith in the democratic process, the separation of Church and State and who are beholden to big money donors, corporations and their own re-election. This party is willing to barter away their Article 1 powers to the Article 2 executive for some unknown reason. Again, not the "norm".

This is where the Biden Administration was a dismal failure. Biden assumed that the system and the norms would be enough to avoid fascism. He was wrong.

We can talk about how it used to be and what the Constitution says or we can talk about what needs to happen to get back to normal and what needs to be codified into law to stop this from happening again.

We also need an investigation into the connection between a Federal Court in Miami, conservative media, the Heritage Foundation and the big money behind all of this. That's going to take getting Democrats and Independents back into power.

 

[ravenstone]

Biden also showed Trump how to ignore the courts and do as you wish.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Well... that's how it has been and until now, it's been "a norm".

The problem is that we're in abnormal times.

We have a group of conservative activists in the Federal Courts that have been allowed to be given lifetime appointments and who lied about "stare decisis" and "norms" in their Congressional hearings.

We also have a party that no longer has faith in the democratic process, the separation of Church and State and who are beholden to big money donors, corporations and their own re-election. This party is willing to barter away their Article 1 powers to the Article 2 executive for some unknown reason. Again, not the "norm".

This is where the Biden Administration was a dismal failure. Biden assumed that the system and the norms would be enough to avoid fascism. He was wrong.

We can talk about how it used to be and what the Constitution says or we can talk about what needs to happen to get back to normal and what needs to be codified into law to stop this from happening again.

We also need an investigation into the connection between a Federal Court in Miami, conservative media, the Heritage Foundation and the big money behind all of this. That's going to take getting Democrats and Independents back into power.

I know all that. The point is, I was responding to the statement "the Constitution doesn't say the courts alone have the power to interpret the meaning and intent of the law". The Constitution clearly DOES say that, in my view. It's not just a "norm" that we follow like a tradition. The President (Constitutionally) cannot interpret the law to mean whatever he wants it to mean. The Court adjudicates the law's meaning. Trump is not just abandoning a "norm". What he is doing is unconstitutional and violating his oath of office.

Constitutionally, do the courts alone have the power to legally interpret the meaning and intent of the law? Yes or No?

 

[opinterph]

Stare Decisis is dead.

Your assertion assumes surrender and defeat, which is your prerogative. Accordingly, your statement "stands" on the merit of your assumption.

 

[rareboy]

The Legislative Branch makes laws. The Executive Branch is supposed to faithfully execute the laws. The Judicial Branch interprets the law's meaning and intent, and rules on laws in case of Constitutionality or legal disputes. No where does the Constitution give the Executive Branch the power to manipulate, bend, or ignore the law at will. The Executive Branch is supposed to follow the rule of law as adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The rule of law applies to everyone. The President can't (isn't supposed to) twist the law to his own will to do something illegal. Although Trump (and you) think the President can interpret the law to mean anything he wants it to mean, the Constitution clearly gives the power to rule on the meaning and intent of the law to the Courts. FUCKING PERIOD.

If this isn't the foundation of the 3 equal branches of government...then the founding fathers were apparently stupider than anyone knew.

The tragedy, in all dictatorships, is that the judiciary is full of corrupt and feckless figures who will bow to a tyrant's will. This is literally what the history of autocrats is based on.

And the US today has one of the most corrupted and anti-democratic benches in its history...full of traitors who will gladly sell out the nation in order to serve their religious masters or their literal corporate owners.

But the day they carve out the stated principle of Marbury v. Madison and allow the President of the United States or his corrupt Attorney General to define and interpret law is the day when they are literally no different than the worst of the worst judiciaries who serve the world's worst dictators.

 

[rareboy]

Another tiny, tiny victory today as the Courts block Trump's refugee ban... at least temporarily. It will just increase their rage and determination to get rid of an independent judiciary, but every delay is a victory against the kind of complete destruction of the state that Hitler accomplished in 53 days.

Judge temporarily blocks Trump refugee ban - NewsBreak

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from suspending the U.S. refugee program, siding with resettlement groups that challenged a Day

www.newsbreak.com

 

[KaraBulut]

...Constitutionally, do the courts alone have the power to legally interpret the meaning and intent of the law? Yes or No?

Not directly because Article III only specifies jurisdiction and what types of cases the Courts can hear (e.g. disputes between the States) but doesn't grant specific powers to the Court.

Because judicial review was the result of a SCOTUS decision in Marbury v. Madison, it is largely dependent upon stare decisis and public respect for the Judicial system. Without either, the Court has no power other than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

This is why the current Court's abrogation of stare decisis in the Chevron case and in Roe v Wade becomes dangerous: SCOTUS' powers have been defined by certain acts of Congress (e.g. the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Certiorari Act of 1925) but also by its own decisions (e.g. Marbury v Madison). Remove stare decisis and the power of judicial review tumbles like Jengo blocks. Without judicial review and with the inability of the Federal Courts to enforce its own decisions, it is neutered.

This is a reform that the Democrats and progressives need to ponder. Having the FBI and DOJ reporting to the Executive removes the ability of the Courts to put teeth to its decisions and a capricious Attorney General can just ignore Court decisions.

 

[rareboy]

I think that at the time of both of these decisions, a few of us may have mentioned that the SC had basically laid the foundation for the demolition of the judiciary as a co-equal third branch of government.

And at this point, even if they were to rule that Marbury v. Madison establishes what the framers meant...the easiest way around this is to expand the court, pack it with judges who can be approved by a compliant Senate and pull the decision down like wobbly pillars.

Dear America...you in trouble girl. And with your collapse into fascism, we will inevitably all be bombed to glass as the little dicked emperors finally clash.

 

[rareboy]

Another tiny victory today.

You can't hire your own brownshirts to kidnap and forcibly eject someone because you don't like what they say in your town hall meeting.

Coeur d’Alene prosecutors dismiss citation against woman dragged from town hall, city revokes security company’s business license

City prosecutors will dismiss a misdemeanor battery citation issued to the Post Falls woman who plainclothes private security guards dragged out of a legislative town hall Saturday and the city of Coeur d’Alene has revoked the security company’s business license.

cdapress.com

 

[Norri]

Your assertion assumes surrender and defeat, which is your prerogative. Accordingly, your statement "stands" on the merit of your assumption.

I don’t know why you would say my assertion concerning Stare Decisis being dead amounts to ‘surrender and defeat’, it wasn’t me who killed it but, ironically enough, a very conservative Supreme Court. The reason I say it’s dead is that the current court has no respect for it and I don’t think the next one will either. I expect to see the day when many of this court’s decisions will be quickly reversed once a different ideology rules. That don’t sound like surrender or defeat to me.

 

[Norri]

If this isn't the foundation of the 3 equal branches of government...then the founding fathers were apparently stupider than anyone knew.

If you consider the role the sainted founding fathers envisioned for the SCOTUS in the constitution they are in no way a co-equal branch.

Their jurisdiction is limited to the listed cases…..disputes between states etc. and if they had stuck to that we wouldn’t even be talking about them as they would be insignificant.

 

[Norri]

Biden also showed Trump how to ignore the courts and do as you wish.

When exactly did Biden ignore a court decision?

 

[KaraBulut]

Psst. America. This is what you're supposed to do:

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-general-prosecutor-charges-bolsonaro-alleged-coup-plot-2025-02-19/

Former Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro was charged on Tuesday with leading a plot to overthrow the government and undermine the country’s 40-year-old democracy after his 2022 election loss, complicating his narrow chances of a political comeback.

The charges come after a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva took office.

Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet charged the far-right firebrand and his running mate, General Walter Braga Netto, with leading a "criminal organization" that wanted to create a new order in the country, including with plans to poison Lula.