A federal appellate judge challenged Supreme
Court infallibility
American Thinker,
by
Andrea Widburg
Original Article
Posted By: Magnante,
3/21/2021 6:05:00 AM
In the case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., which emerged from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, nobody but the parties involved cared about the issues in the case. It became noteworthy, though, because Judge Laurence Silberman used the dissent, not just to disagree with the majority’s ruling, but also to warn against the danger of a national media that is completely allied with the party controlling all of Washington D.C. However, I find the case even more exciting because it attacks the notion of Supreme Court infallibility.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 3/21/2021 6:25:17 AM (No. 730317)
The Supreme Court used to be known as "The infallible 5 and the befuddled 4."
15 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
4Justice 3/21/2021 6:58:33 AM (No. 730320)
Today, Silberman is my hero!
26 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
lakerman1 3/21/2021 7:11:27 AM (No. 730322)
Andrea is wrong about the Brown v. Board of Education case.
Starting with the concept that 'all men were created equal,' the U.S. wasn't sure how to give full rights to blacks, and in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 'separate but equal' allowed for segregation.
Around 1951, in the case of Sweat v. Texas, where Sweat wanted to attend the U. of Texas Law School, was rejected because he was black, and Texas created a black law school for him! The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the U. of Texas to admit Sweat, but only Sweat, to its law school, stating that a brand new law school could not be equal.
The NAACP then looked for a case where a school district was segregated, but offered truly equal education to blacks.
They found it in Topeka, Kansas, sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was inherently unequal.
Andrea was wrong to find Brown merely a policy preference.
10 people like this.
It’s about time. Many SCOTUS pronouncements are questionable at best.
22 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
privateer 3/21/2021 7:49:51 AM (No. 730347)
SCOTUS, as currently inhabited, consists of two wise and fair men, and a clique of 7 traitors and/or fools.
31 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Rand Al'Thor 3/21/2021 7:57:27 AM (No. 730350)
Since I'm a member of what is the only demographic you can now legally discriminate against, I believe in SCOTUS fallibility.
21 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
pros7767 3/21/2021 7:58:27 AM (No. 730352)
WOW! Judge Silberman certainly fired a shot across the SCOTUS' bow!
Now we will get to see just how constitutionalist the new Justices are. Unfortunately, they failed the most important test with the Texas election case.
31 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
MOBeef4u 3/21/2021 8:13:09 AM (No. 730366)
#5, I would add cowards to your description of the newest members of the Court.
26 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Venturer 3/21/2021 8:32:50 AM (No. 730377)
Yes: I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the Texas case because they feared the reaction it would bring.
It was a cowardly decision and they allowed Chief Justice Roberts to unduly interfere in their decision.
20 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
wakeupcall 3/21/2021 8:51:25 AM (No. 730398)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
– Thomas Jefferson
"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps [group of people]. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."
—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820
15 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
wakeupcall 3/21/2021 9:26:37 AM (No. 730430)
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps - [taken for its self]] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.'
If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide].
For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... 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 please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government [Supreme Court] was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
10 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
red1066 3/21/2021 9:54:58 AM (No. 730455)
As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court failed this country in not overturning the last election due to obvious fraud in a number of states. To come out months before the election stating they didn't want to decide a presidential election is all I needed to know that the fix was in to destroy Trump.
16 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Madinmaryland 3/21/2021 9:58:04 AM (No. 730458)
She is such a good writer. The last two paragraphs made me lol! Great piece.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 3/21/2021 10:22:11 AM (No. 730481)
Two good judges sit on the Supreme Court the rest are court jester led by the head 'jester' John Roberts. The nitwits are far from 'supreme' but more whimsical. Good for Judge Laurence Silberman he seem to be smarter in his ruling.
12 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
J-Dog 3/21/2021 10:44:00 AM (No. 730506)
He makes sound points but will anything change?
6 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Tom Paine 3/21/2021 11:52:18 AM (No. 730577)
Each Justices of the Supreme Court is a Pompous ass. A Great example "Buck vs Bell". It has never been overturned.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
stablemoney 3/21/2021 12:53:33 PM (No. 730630)
The Republicans have appointed a lot of SC justices, and yet Republicans are still a 6-3 minority on the court. Former Justice Kennedy should burn in hell for the Wayfair decision on economic nexus that has burdened small business around this country with undoable sales tax reporting requirements for those with sales in multiple states.
7 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Magnante"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)