GOP eyes taking marriage from courts

[kskiska]

House Republicans yesterday emphasized their eagerness to reassert congressional authority over the judicial branch, holding a hearing on stripping federal courts of their jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to same-sex "marriage."

Republicans and conservative activists have contemplated restricting the jurisdiction of "out-of-control" courts on other issues, such as the Pledge of Allegiance and public acknowledgment of God.

(snip)

Mr. Hostettler has crafted a bill that would strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of their ability to hear cases pertaining to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which said states don't have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.

(snip)

"It's very dangerous, and it should not be done," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat and House Judiciary Committee member.
Mr. Nadler said a particular decision could be overturned either by passing a law or a constitutional amendment. Court-stripping is "depriving citizens of their right to go to court," he said.

more…
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112909-3346r.htm

[aquart]

1. Nadler's my congressman, you know.

[Solon]

2. Congress is overreaching again...

this will be struck down so quick those damned conservatives heads will spin for years.

[Sandpiper]

3. What is that they don't understand

About there being three coequal branches of the federal government?

[Dookus]

4. It's actually an interesting constitutional question

that has never been answered. The provision in question (from Article III, Section 2) reads:

"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."

The question is whether this clause means congress can limit the Court's jurisdiction on any issue. It seems unlikely, and furthermore, it seems unlikely the court would uphold such a limitation on its powers, especially in light of Marbury v Madison.

As far as I know, congress has never tried to do this. I believe the court would slap them down for trying in a New York minute. The potential outcome of such a situation would be horrendous - we could have different operating laws regarding constitutional rights for different district or appellate court jurisdictions, with no way to resolve them.

[izzie]

7. They seem to think Bush can have any power he wants. And------

he seems to think he can also. I guess he was out with the team, on the playing field, when that came up in class.Then it may be that God has told him he should rule.

[saigon68]

5. This was settled by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury vs Madison.

Doubtful the Supremes would not kick a bill like this right back to the 17th Century where it belongs anyway.

Although actually from the religious agenda of these zealots it looks like it belongs in the 8th or 9th century along with burning at the stake etc.

[Democat]

6. Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court - go ahead and try!

This will be a defeat for the Republicans - even the furthest right wing judges are not going to allow themselves to be stripped of their power.

[gatlingforme]

10. One thing Republicans like -- it's their power over others. This

will not happen ---

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Separation of Powers?

Class? Anyone? Does anybody know if the legislature even has the right to infringe on this judicial right?

[dusty64]

9. Further shredding of the

Constitution. Shout it from the rooftops, "The extreme rightwingers are TRAITORS!"