TimingLogic's Blog

Reasoned, Relevant And Often Contrarian Commentary On Economics


October 24
I'm an electrical engineer and mathematician by training. My career has spanned diverse areas of expertise from being part of a team which designed the world's most powerful computers to corporate consulting around business transformation and information-based solutions to being a corporate sales and marketing executive in the information technology and business consulting space. I’ve led teams responsible for innovative and transformative solutions and been part of teams that helped set strategy for many of America's greatest companies. Two of my interests are econometrics, democratic finance and quantitative - qualitative analysis. Over the years I have developed risk-based models and trading systems meant to identify significant investment opportunities and periods of extreme risk. My blog is an outlet for another of my passions, writing. I generally consider myself a contrarian. Therefore, many of my rantings are meant to encourage people to question what they believe to be true. Terms of Use & Disclaimer: First off, I don't take anything on here too seriously and you shouldn't either. These are simply sardonic rantings of Bill, my alter ego, often meant to agitate for peaceful & nonviolent reform. This web site reflects the views of its authors. It is unaffiliated with any NASD broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than its authors. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes, comedic relief and entertainment only and are not investing recommendations. The authors may have positions in securities mentioned herein. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. While information discussed on this site was gathered from what are believed to be reliable sources, in no way is informational accuracy guaranteed. All information on this site may contain errors and omissions. Trading and investing involves high levels of risk. Always consult a licensed financial advisor or broker before making any and all investment decisions. Authors of this site and any sites which are fed by said site, including Open Salon and others, will assume no responsibility for the actions of the reader and user. Readers and users agree, as condition to accessing this site, to release and hold harmless this site's authors from all liability in connection with this site or any views posted on this site. All readers and users of this site agree that use of this site requires acceptance to the current Terms Of Use & Disclaimer and that current terms include any and all use and material from site inception. If you do not understand these statements in their entirety or do not agree to be bound by this current agreement, you must immediately discontinue use of this site. This Terms Of Use & Disclaimer may change at any time and it is the reader's and user's responsibility to review, understand and abide by any updates.

TimingLogic's Links

APRIL 8, 2012 9:58AM

Judge Napolitano On President Obama’s Rhetoric Projected At The Supreme Court - Incomprehensible

Rate: 2 Flag

I’m on a rant about this healthcare bill.  It’s important for a much larger reason than face value.  In so many ways the dynamics surrounding the passage of this bill and the political and legal wranglings after its passage signify what is wrong with public service in this country.  How political parties have truly embraced anything-goes behavior in order to gain an upper hand in the game of controlling the money bubble that is flowing into Washington.  The outlandish behavior between parties that then encourages similar outlandish behavior from their supporters has reached levels unimaginable.  We see this in the endless commentary for and against this healthcare by politically-motivated pundits who really could care less about what is actually in the bill.    The mob cheering and jeering for its team has reached levels I have never witnessed.  Just recently when sanitorium Santorum, was readying to fire a gun at a shooting range, a supporter yelled to pretend it was Obama.    What kind of person could even think this type of thought?   Let alone believe it is acceptable to yell this at a political event?   For all of his shortcomings as a leader this country needs, this is a human being with a wife and two daughters.  It’s one thing to critique the politics but it’s quite another to wish personal harm on a father and husband or any human being.  Is your mouth connected in any way to your brain?   Politics, being a game of control, truly engenders mob behavior.  Believe me, the mob can take many forms.  Obama has his mob as well.  Their form of controlling dissent is much more covert.  We’re more educated than you, so anything we do is based on our intellectual superiority. 

People in this country have become truly crazy over partisan politics.  C-r-a-z-y.   But what has legitimized this behavior is the behavior of politicians who find new ways to manifest their insanity.  We even had Gingrich race-bating his way to victory in South Carolina.   Is this 2012 or 1862?  Our society has seemingly been set back a hundred years by politicians and corporations.  Both political parties are morally-bankrupt but the Republicans are in a league by themselves in their outright insanity.  Literally.  The partisan Democrats hide behind the self’s perception of intellectual  superiority that belies an insidious  corruption.   A perfect example is this healthcare bill that is more corrupt than anything I can think of that has been passed under A Republican White House.  But clearly not as corrupt as a multitude of bills passed under Clinton and Algore, another example of insidious corruption hiding behind a perception that academic intelligence equates to strong leadership.  We hammered on this myth with the Herbert Hoover example back in 2008.   While Hoover didn’t personally cause the Great Depression, he was part of the culture of corruption in Washington that contributed to it. 

In some regards, I think all of the political wranglings of our day are irrelevant.   The world is going to change so drastically in coming years that I seriously doubt we’ll never see the full implementation of anything politicians are doing today.  In other words, the money bubble of billions of dollars that elites and corporations are spending today is going to have a long term return on investment of negative consequences.  That said, one can’t live their life based on tomorrow‘s expectations so today is today. 

We have talked about judicial review quite a few times on here.  This is not a constitutional authority granted  to the court.  But it is not forbidden either.  In other words, the courts granted it to themselves.  In fact, we wrote that both Congress and the Executive branch of government have the ability to also invoke the process of constitutional review as a check against the Supreme Court.  All three branches have this ability to check against each other.  I have actually penned on here that the Congress should take up constitutional review to invalidate the corrupt Supreme Court decision on corporate personhood.  Unfortunately, that will likely never happen until macro circumstances change because both political parties are registered corporations who survive and thrive through corporate personhood. 

People need to understand the Supreme Court is not the law of the land.   It is not the final decider.  George Bush is.  Haha.  Seriously, it is a check in a system of checks.  But, those checks are meant to work both ways.   In other words, the President could legally challenge any Supreme Court decision through constitutional review.    Constitutional review is the basis for the President Bush legal team’s legal opinions  regarding the constitutionality of water boarding and other issues in their war on terror.   I don’t cite their decisions as any source of truth but simply as an example of constitutional review within the executive branch.  My point is that constitutional review is not the sole claim of the courts as almost everyone seems to believe. 

There are a multitude of avenues that could be taken when spats arise between branches of government or between states and the federal government or between the people and either levels of governments or whatnot.  But they are seldom invoked.  Most obviously, that includes passing amendments to the Constitution or amending existing law to make it constitutional as agreed to by all branches of government.   The system is imperfect, especially in today’s world when the corruption of money and self-interest is so prevalent in all three branches, but it is working as designed as far as the Supreme Court having the right to review and even strike down the healthcare bill.  There may be influences involved in the courts that shouldn’t be but then those same interests helped Democrats craft this horrible piece of crony, corrupt legislation.  Umm, by the way, I’m one of those people who wants healthcare for all Americans.  Who believes it is a human right.  But, how can anyone other than a party hack, who only cares about their team winning, support a bill that is so blatantly corrupt and crafted in secrecy under the duress of massive lobbying by for-profit interests?  As we noted at the time, a ten page addendum to Medicare would have allowed Americans to buy into an existing structure at cost without creating a whole new 2500 page bureaucracy based on corruption and massive special interest money.  But, that most obvious of options didn’t enrich the Democrat’s corporate masters. 

President Obama’s rhetoric, as shown in the Napolitano video link below, is really quite incomprehensible.  His characterization of ruling on this case as judicial activism really is preposterous.   (Factcheck.org’s comments on his rhetoric here.)  Courts interpret law and applicability to cases.  That’s what they do.   What the hell else are they supposed to do?  Play Yahtzee all day?  Judicial activism, as he attempts to characterize this, is when courts don’t interpret law but make law.  That is clearly not the case here.   They are interpreting the constitutionality requiring every citizen to buy for-profit insurance to enrich predatory corporations mandated by the force of the state.   That most certainly is a valid constitutional issue to rule upon.  While legal wording surely wouldn’t entail my brutal remarks, that, my friends, is fascism.   The comingling of corporate power and money with government as defined by this healthcare bill.

Any ruling against universal healthcare is not the end of the world.   A new plan could be drafted quite easily be it an addendum to Medicare or offering Americans access to Congress’s plan or whatever.  It need not be some enormous new bureaucracy that would be nearly impossible to pass Congress again. 

This on the other hand is the kind of dishonest, shallow, unreasoned, trash journalism not based on law that serves absolutely no purpose other than cheerleading for President Obama.  That’s a constant problem.  So many engaged in party politics and their intellectually-outsourced mob supporters view politics as a game and their team should win regardless of whether they are abiding by the rule of law or not.  It’s for reasons such as this that we have a rule of law.  So the rest of us don’t need to put up with the opinions of people’s incessant mob behavior.

It makes me nearly hurl to watch Murdoch’s monstrosity creation of Faux News in this video segment but Napolitano is generally a very reasonable person.  On this issue he is clearly very reasonable.  This public attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court and-or the public by President Obama is highly unusual and without merit beyond attempted control.  By the way, personally, I completely disagree with lifetime judicial appointments that Napolitano seemingly defends for the same reasons I put up that last post about perceptions of self and the human condition’s self-deceit, control, fear and unsubstantiated beliefs.  Lifetime appoints may be virtuous were human beings not human beings.  It’s sort of like that free market nonsense.  That would be great were we have evolved to some level of nobility, truth and virtue with every intent.   All free markets do is allow psychopaths to run roughshod over those not willing to destroy their fellow man.  It rewards those most willing and capable of doing harm.  In other words, it’s Social Darwinism or survival of those most willing to destroy everyone else for the benefit of the self.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
The executive has no such thing as post-Supreme Court constitutional review. When the Bush lawyers created constitutional justifications for torture, it was an opinion, having no force of law that wasn't subject to S Court rejection.
There is nothing in the way of a substantial check on S Court power. That is why they got away with scrapping the constitutional provisions for disputed elections and declared Bush president. If such a power existed in the executive, that S Court act could have been tossed in the trash bin where it belongs, allowing the Constitution to be followed.

Montesquieu, credited with the concept of checks and balances. properly and intelligently noted that the independence of the judiciary needed to be real to be effective as intended. Instead of the ACA entering the Court with the presumption of constitutionality, as intended, the tradition-optional Justices treated it as unconstitutional, shifting the burden of proof to the SG, not the challengers. They discussed specific provisions not in question, purely political, and were applying a newly invented standard based on incredibly specious grounds. The majority of constitutional scholars know this is true, conservatives and Democrats alike.

The reversal of proof burden and creation of new standard is only slightly different from the arbitrary Bush v. Gore application of personal opinion-as-desire, and not too different than Citizens United, where they invented the case before them in order to create a new law, abolish 100 years of settled law and 220 years of American tradition. Purely ideological. Yet it applies. Why? Because there is no check on the S Court when it decides to act extra-constitutionally.

Napolitano's commentary on this wasn't anything special or insightful. He simply characterizes what Obama said as an affront, even though the SG had just spent 3 days arguing the same points before the Court. Spin, not serious legal commentary.

Speaking of un-serious commentary, Napolitano is the same guy who routinely deletes the 1st enumerated power in Art 1 Sec 8, and who also offers the laughable opinion that "regulate" in the Commerce Clause means to keep commerce "regular." I call this the Napolitano "Laxative Clause" theory. It's in absolute contradiction to the meaning of regulate then, now and as far back as the word's Latin root. It's always meant the same thing, except in Nappy's Nattering Nincompoopery.
I read your first sentence and realized you were attempting to feed me a line a bullshit based on your lack of understanding of law. So, unfortunately, I didn't waste my time reading the rest. I don't write about topics I don't understand. When you can say the same thing, come back and read my blog.

I have quite a few constitutional scholars and law professors you could write to get a clarification of your lack of understanding of law. But, this will suffice until you are actually able to learn what you are talking about.

You should know in the future, I have no tolerance for bullshit. Especially people who pretend to know what they are talking about and want to lecture me on it.

You have no idea of what you're talking about and your link doesn't prove anything other than the executive has powers under the Constitution that can evade S Court jurisdiction or find, by that or the fact no challenge has come before the Court, or that have and were rejected, a traditional deference to the executive on such matters.
Instead of realizing why that is true, you stupidly extended the concept to an idea of executive review of S Court decisions. There is no example of the Executive issuing a legal opinion that overturns a S Court ruling. You could cite Andy Jackson *ignoring* a S Court ruling, but not because of a grant of review power.

You should read my first sentence again. It is exactly the truth. It is laughable to suggest the executive can override S Court decisions based on what you think is executive right to review.

You can review Hamdi v. Rumsfeld or Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to see two cases where Executive legal opinions were ruled incorrect and the claim to power overruled by the Court. In your delusional world the Bush administration could have performed an executive review and overruled the Court. Hilarious.

I delivered an exactly truthful and factual rebuttal to your error, and you respond like somebody who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I can't fault that, as you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Being hilariously wrong and insulting is a bad combination, but it only causes me to chuckle at a chucklehead.

You made an ignorant claim and then went about trying to find evidence to support it. That's where you found the laughably inapplicable article that doesn't even support your silly-assed premise.
Contrary to your claim of not writing about things you don't understand, you just did.

Your analysis is a completely incompetent wad of jackassery.

Gots annie mor espurt consishoeshunal opinyens?
You sure are good at assigning statements to other people they never made. Your entire blathering load of bullshit is based on something I never said and constitutional powers you don't even know exist. I never said overturn court decisions. NO WHERE. I said challenge the CONSTITUTIONALITY of an issue decided by the Supreme Court regarding the Constitution. So, you seem to believe the courts can do whatever it wants. The Supreme Court's power is unchecked in determining constitutional interpretation? Is that what you are saying? That is patently false.

I looked up Hamdan v Rumsfeld. If you are an attorney, and I HIGHLY doubt you are based on your citation, that is, unless you are a divorce lawyer, you aren't even using proper precedence or interpretation of law. That case had NOTHING to do with constitutional interpretaton. Zero. It isn't even relevant to this discussion.

All three branches of the Federal government are granted constitutional interpretation, dog breath. That is what constitutional review is. So, why don't you tell me in your infinite wisdom, if all three disagree on that interpretation, what clause in the Constitution grants the sole power of decision on this example to the Supreme Court? It DOESN'T EXIST. Judicial Review doesn't even exist. Judicial Review, which you seemingly are stating is beyond challenge, isn't even a power granted in the Constitution. You can't find it because it is an extra-constitutional power it granted itself. Therefore, the Supreme Court clearly DOES NOT have the final authority to determine constitutionality unless the other two branches defer to its self-granted authority. They do NOT need to do that. They simply have accepted that extra-constitutional power the court has granted itself. You show how little you actually know about this topic with your babbling replies.

My understanding of constitutional review came from a detailed discussion with a law professor and constitutional scholar of substantial ability and knowledge. My remarks can be validated quite easily if you would do your diligence. You, on the other hand, have what knowledge to refute that? You clean toilets for a living?

I actually learned this from a law professor as a little known method of fighting judicial activism in interpretation of the Constitution in the extreme case of Corporate Personhood. It would be to challenge the courts on their self-granted, extraconstitutional powers to determine that corporations are people.

Now, you go find a constitutional lawyer and get them to reply, based on citations from the Constitution that refutes the power that I typed, that is, constitutional interpretation and, therefore review, actually exists within all three branches of government as I originally stated. And, as the JSTOR link I provided actually shows example of. And, their reply should have appropriate citations behind it. Then, I will respond with a reply from my source.

You don't see it challenged every day. In fact, I have never seen it used. But, then judicial review, is also not a power granted in the constitution either. Something you seem to defend that does exist by intimation. Your pants fell down. You had better pick them up.

Sie haben keine Ahnung, was du redest.
I responded to precisely what you erroneously claimed:

"People need to understand the Supreme Court is not the law of the land. It is not the final decider. George Bush is. Haha. Seriously, it is a check in a system of checks. But, those checks are meant to work both ways.

[[ No they aren't. There is no check on the Supreme Court's power to rule on constitutionality. Anyone can "review constitutionality" on any issue they wish. However, it will not have ANY force as a CHECK on the APPLICABLE S Court decision.]]]

In other words, the President could legally challenge any Supreme Court decision through constitutional review.

[[This is wrong, and the reason for my correction]]

Constitutional review is the basis for the President Bush legal team’s legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of water boarding and other issues in their war on terror.

[[These reviews were prior to the SCourt rulings, not after, nor do they have any force as a CHECK on the S Court's power of APPLICABLE constitutional review/decision. This is true prior to a ruling, or after a ruling. The Bush admin's assertion of constitutionality was denied in both cases, the Court decisions not subject to any CHECK in any case.]]

I don’t cite their decisions as any source of truth

[[ But you do wrongly cite them as a CHECK on the S Court]]

but simply as an example of constitutional review within the executive branch. My point is that constitutional review is not the sole claim of the courts as almost everyone seems to believe."
[[Again, anyone can review the constitutionality of any issue. You can, I can, the guy selling oranges on the entrance ramp can, or the president can. None of those reviews will have any force as a CHECK on S Court powers or decisions]]

It may help, but given you level of obliviousness and your totally fabricated experts, it probably won't help to remember:

The Supreme Court is not final because they're right, they're right because they're final.

You can observe the grant of judicial review on the constitutionality of laws isn't firmly written in the Constitution, as I have, and as many do, and say it was established by the Court itself in Marbury v.Madison. However, the concept was discussed in the Constitutional Convention to no significant disapproval, was practiced by courts before then and after and before Marbury.

It was discussed in the state ratification debates with nobody taking the side that it shouldn't be allowed, per legal tradition and practice. This is True of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. This power of review and judgement was stated in Hamilton's Federalist 78:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

The S Court performed the task of constitutional review before Marbury, in Hylton, but upheld the constitutionality of the act in question.

In conclusion, dog-ate-my-argument wannabe, you can make an attempt to overturn this type of judicial review based on there not being an explicit grant in the Constitution, but good-freakin' luck on that. In any event, under any rational approach to the subject, on any day of the week or week of the year, it would NOT be based on the silly-assed notion of Executive Review being an established CHECK on the S Court's power of constitutional review, as YOU CLAIMED.

Now produce Harvey, the invisible 6' rabbit and constitutional expert, who will validate your claim.

You're downright funny. Perhaps you discovered your laughable constitutional theory while you were cleaning toilets. That would fit your hilarious conclusion because, for sure, it must have fallen out of somebody's ass.

You should have flushed it.
PS cornsishoeshunel egspurt
When I say this:
[[These reviews were prior to the SCourt rulings, not after, nor do they have any force as a CHECK on the S Court's power of APPLICABLE constitutional review/decision. This is true prior to a ruling, or after a ruling. The Bush admin's assertion of constitutionality was denied in both cases, the Court decisions not subject to any CHECK in any case.]]

By "both cases," I am referring to Hamdan and Hamdi, the 2 cases I cited in response to your "war on terror" assertion. Given you don't understand much, I can see why you don't understand the reference.
Typing more doesn't make your assertion accurate. It just means you typed more. You cannot deny what I write so you are arguing outside of the Constitution with regards to Federalist papers and prior precedence. That doesn't mean shit because none of that made it into the Constitution for a reason. That reason is there was not agreement to grant this power to one body of federal government over the other. Once again, constitutional review is granted to all three branches of government. You cannot deny that. Determining the constitutionality is NOT granted to the courts. You cannot deny that. I am well aware of Marbury. I am well aware of the Federalist papers. I am also well aware that the anti-Federalists opposed the concept of Judicial review is possible tyranny of the courts. Umm... that would include Thomas Jefferson. THAT dissent IS ONE of the reasons Judicial Review IS NOT GRANTED to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. You failed to mention that for your own self-interest in manipulating reality.

It really doesn't matter what was discussed when as it pertains to arguments before the Constitution was finalized. The reality is the Supreme Court IS NOT THE ONLY branch of the federal government with the ability of constitutional review. You can type all you want and you cannot change that.

And, yes, while there was precedence for judicial review in countries other than the U.S. before the Supreme Court took it in a power grab, there was ALSO precedence for other bodies than courts to provide constitutional review. HENCE the VERY reason it is NOT EXPLICITLY stated as a POWER granted TO A COURT.

THE COURT IS NOT THE FINAL ARBITER of what is constitutional. The CORRUPT Marbury case, is used as precedence as is the precedence prior to the Constitution. IT IS WITHIN constitutional authority for both the executive and congress to make that challenge of what is constitutional. Because they have deferred simply means they have never had a reason to challenge it with their granted powers.

Marbury was a corrupt POWER grab by a corrupt court just like many other power grabs by the court. That it is used as precedence is quite preposterous but I grant that it is.

The U.S. Congress, as an example, if it had acted prior to Marbury, could have easily set up a central body to review constitutionality of issues facing our society that was outside of the purview of the Supreme Court as exists in France, as an example. If they had done that, the Supreme Court may not even be involved in this issue.

This act would have CLEARLY been within their rights of constitutional review THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL.

You have your head up your ass and you are brainwashed by beliefs that are NOT included in Article 3 of the Constitution granting rights to the Judiciary.

You can keep typing all you want. You are wrong.
Being wrong at great length takes a "special" talent.

The Anti-Federalists didn't launch an opposition to judicial review, they acknowledged it and claimed it could lead to tyranny because...say it with me...it is an UNCHECKED power. The truth is it can and has led to tyrannical decisions, and that partisans or ideologues with lifetime appointments is problematic. However, that doesn't make it subject to Executive or Congressional review, as YOU CLAIMED. I simply disputed, successfully, YOUR CLAIM.

The Constitutional Convention could have written this, that or the other per this issue. They did not. Congress could decide to add more Justices to the Court, as FDR's switch in time saves 9 issue shows. They could remove a Justice or two for not being In Good Behavior, but that also isn't based on some silly-assed concept of Executive Review of Supreme Court decisions.

After being caught not know what you're talking about, you resort to an entirely different blob of babble about the "corrupt" Marbury v. Madison. A rant which also has nothing to do with your laughable assertion of executive review.

You're doing nothing more than babbling now, even more incoherent and oblivious to reality than before.
Your blog, your babble.

You may have the Final Incoherent Squeal.

PS--There are hobbies besides politics and, in your case, (f)law. Have you considered taking up scrapbooking?
Congress could also decide to nominate people other than lawyers to the courts. And, if you are as good as they come, I think that would be a major improvement. You don't get it. You keep citing what isn't written into the Constitution and I keep citing powers granted by the Constitution.
Timing "Logic?",
This is in response to a private message you sent, supposedly to spare me the "humility" associated with you finally finding the information that proves you are right and I am wrong. Of course, I am right and you wrong and nobody reads your blog anyway. But whatever...

In your message you attempt insult, just as you do here. My response to that is:

Are you a freakin' moron?

That's rhetorical, of course, because you must be. You did not prove your point, nor did your unnamed "scholar."

You wrote this laughable bit of ignorance:

"But, those checks are meant to work both ways. In other words, the President could legally challenge any Supreme Court decision through constitutional review. Constitutional review is the basis for the President Bush legal team’s legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of water boarding and other issues in their war on terror. I don’t cite their decisions as any source of truth but simply as an example of constitutional review within the executive branch. My point is that constitutional review is not the sole claim of the courts as almost everyone seems to believe."

In that, you insist the president has the right to review S Court decisions as a check on the Court's power. How do you know? The White House lawyers issued a legal opinion!

Your Mysterious Scholar is simply talking about Congress (note: Congress is not the President ) stripping the S Court of jurisdiction on cases that aren't within their specifically stated constitutional purview. He goes on to say Congress could create a body to review constitutionality that would be independent of the SC. Yada-yada.

To keep this rejection of your "new evidence" short, Mystery Scholar does not at all, in the least, directly, tangentially, through the front or back door, in any way shape or form, support your position.

First, he doesn't mention your laughable Presidential Review scenario, except as a "perhaps could be" or "some thought that" "across all 3 branches," etc. In other words--the power does not exist like you say it does. Like you insisted it does. Like you loudly and ignorantly insisted it does. You said it can be done now, and as a matter of course and cited a Bush WOT legal opinion as a (hilarious) example. Nowhere in your anal ysis did you add all the ifs and buts it would take to get to Mystery Scholar's sometime in the future maybe perhaps position.

And let's admit for you that your problem stems from thinking an White House lawyer's legal review BEFORE the issue was acted upon, and certainly LONG before it reached the Court, was the same thing as the power of negating an SC decision. That's funny, considering you're way off on the timing and logic.

Secondly, these things he says Congress COULD do...have not been done. However, you do not mention this Congressional Jurisdiction-Stripping in your post, only the hilarious Presidential Review. How you think your "scholar" shows you're right has far more to do with your skewed imagination than his constitutional "what if" scenario. Evidently you're simply not as smart as you want to imagine. And you're as much as calling your Scholar a dumbass, given you say this was his response to your premise.

I did enjoy you making up the story that the 1 month delay in your response was because this Famous, Sought-After Scholar was too busy to get back with you immediately. The old "intimate knowledge --- I know this scholar" canard.
I always like it when a dullard exposes himself by fabricating a story only a dullard would believe. Also, that you think I'm as stupid as you must be and would take this asinine BS story as anointing your scatter-brained anal ysis.

In somewhat redundant summation, you made the claim the president has the power of judicial review. Your Mystery Scholar writes of an entirely different issue --jurisdiction-stripping of the SC--and you claim this proves you're right and that, as you say, I got my information from the back of a Cheetos bag.

Because you can't see that you're not even remotely making anything close to being "sense," you have done nothing more than add more evidence that you're not exactly a paragon of facts and logic. All you've managed to do is make me chuckle at the fact you're willing to chase a laughable error and swing an even more laughable example than before while you totally ignore that your premise has nothing to do with it.

It's best you stick with 'lectrical engineerin' and quit watching Judge Judy shows.
You can believe whatever you want Cheetos man. I have no reason to lie. You don't know what you are talking about. I can't even be bothered to read your reply since it's nothing more than being self defensive and insecure about being wrong.

I thought you would like to see the response from the law professor below who had provided me the information you and I barbed over. I know it must be humiliating to lose a law debate to a non lawyer. I'm sure your ego can handle it. His JD is from Georgetown and he is published quite extensively as it pertains to constitutional law. Apparently, if it is some great epiphany, your law degree must have come from the back of a Cheetos bag. Because everything I said was correct.

By the way, it took him until two weeks ago to reply because he was in Europe. His services as a constitutional scholar are in high demand not only here but outside of the country. Your view of the law is typical of lawyers. Typically wrong. I suspect in the next 20 years we will actually see constitutional review stripped from the Supreme Court just as the French stripped them of it 60 years ago. Enjoy...........

Congress could effectively make its voice known by exercising its power under the appellate jurisdiction clause (sometimes called the Mccardle clause) of Art 3 to limit the authority of federal courts to consider the constitutionality of any legislation it chose to pass concerning the subject. Or it might try to enact such legislation under its power in section 5 of the 14th Amendment, although presumably such legislation would have to fall under the rubric of 14th A rights and would still be subject to judicial power under cases like katzenbach & boerne. It seems clear congressional power is more far reaching under the mccardle clause.

Alternatively, nothing prevents Congress from creating a body to review constitutionality of laws & such proposals are not entirely dissimilar from drafts of state constitutions prepared by Madison & Jefferson, or even from the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions.

I’m not sure a crisis would necessarily result, though it might. Certainly we’ve had periods of time when a judicial understanding of the Constitution has been resisted by congresses or presidents who disagreed with the court. Jefferson’s (& lincoln’s) understanding of presidential power embraced a “departmentalist” understanding of constitutional review, where such power was not concentrated solely in courts (ie, judicial review, or better, what scholars call judicial supremacy), but was instead shared across all three “departments.” In cases of disagreement, the argument runs, the people will eventually decide….