GOP lawmaker Rep. Steve King introduces bill to strip federal courts of power to rule on marriage equality - “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act,”

  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Apr 23, 2015 5:44 PM GMT
    GOP lawmaker introduces bill to strip federal courts of power to rule on marriage equality


    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/04/gop-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-strip-federal-courts-of-power-to-rule-on-marriage-equality/
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Apr 23, 2015 6:01 PM GMT
    On Marriage, Are We Going Back to the 'Green Book' Era?

    Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2015/04/on_marriage_are_we_going_back_to_the_green_book_er.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 6:21 PM GMT
    As I believe I posted earlier on an equally addled bill, "this one goin' nowhere neither!" To strip Article III jurisdiction would require amending Article III, i.e., the Constitution, and that ain't gonna happen. OTOH, a legislative grant of standing to parties who do not now have it could pass Constitutional muster, since Congress has the power to determine the scope of the federal courts' jurisdiction. E.g., allowing proponents of ballot measures to defend them in the federal courts where the state officers charged with doing so, usually the AG or Governor, refuse to perform the duty they swore to do, thereby allowing those measures to die by default. That IMO, the standing issue, is the one thing SCOTUS got wrong in deciding the CA gay marriage cases and they got it wrong in a big way that cries out for reform, the dispensive urgings of Eric Holder notwithstanding.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Apr 23, 2015 9:13 PM GMT
    The GOP has long ago forgotten how the constitution works - at least when it doesn't work the way they want it to. They are joined by criminals everywhere who would really like it if judges couldn't rule on their cases either.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Apr 23, 2015 10:32 PM GMT
    I agree with the posts above. I am not a J.D., and certainly not a constitutional scholar, but doesn't this bill violate separation of powers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:38 PM GMT
    The GOP doesn't know what separation of powers is. Witness the allegedly treasonous letter from GOP senators to Iran negating the power of a sitting U.S. President to negotiate. And now limiting Marbury v. Madison?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 11:20 PM GMT
    Neither "separation of powers" nor Marbury has anything to do w/ this proposed legislation. Using either of the above as a vehicle to smear the GOP is thus wrong on two levels. To the extent that this bill goes anywhere, which isn't very far, it goes instead to the scope of the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction under Art. III.

    Describing the letter written by several GOP Senators to the Iranians as "negating the power of a sitting U.S. President to negotiate" is similarly off the mark. That letter went not to his negotiating power, but to his treaty-making power without following the advice and consent clause of Art. II. Nor was there anything "treasonous" about it, allegedly or otherwise; those Senators were well within the limits of exercising their duty as government officials, not as private citizens, when they wrote it, just as they will be when voting on it, should it ever take form as a treaty and be submitted to them for their "advice and consent." To the extent that it has any merits, they will then be considered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 11:27 PM GMT
    Given that it was not a treaty, it seems there is no constitutional reason for the GOP Senators to send the letter to Iran much less advise and consent the President. In 1797, Senator William Blount of Tennessee plotted to invade Spanish Florida with help from the British. He felt that he was acting as a government official but others saw as treason. Senator Blount left the Senate under threat of impeachment.

    The bill strips subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts to decide the constitutionality of marriage under equal protection clause of the Constitution which is uniquely their power as determined by Marbury.

    As to your conjecture about standing issue before SCOTUS, it was the conservative members that decided that there was standing. And even in the absence of it, the decision of the 9th Circuit would stand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidGiven that it was not a treaty, it seems there is no constitutional reason for the GOP Senators to send the letter to Iran much less advise and consent the President. In 1797, Senator William Blount of Tennessee plotted to invade Spanish Florida with help from the British. He felt that he was acting as a government official but others saw as treason. Senator Blount left the Senate under threat of impeachment.

    The bill strips subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts to decide the constitutionality of marriage under equal protection clause of the Constitution which is uniquely their power as determined by Marbury.

    As to your conjecture about standing issue before SCOTUS, it was the conservative members that decided that there was standing. And even in the absence of it, the decision of the 9th Circuit would stand.


    Except for your correctly stating the completely distinguishable and anomalous facts in the Blount matter, neither of your other points makes any sense, and not only because the equal protection clause didn't exist until the XIV Amdt. was adopted in 1868, well after Marbury. Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 2:38 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidNeither "separation of powers" nor Marbury has anything to do w/ this proposed legislation. Using either of the above as a vehicle to smear the GOP is thus wrong on two levels. To the extent that this bill goes anywhere, which isn't very far, it goes instead to the scope of the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction under Art. III.


    It would seem difficult to carve out by legislation a particular subject matter from the court's original jurisdiction since a marriage-equality claim is fundamentally a claim for violation of constitutional rights, and Article III establishes that the federal courts have jurisdiction over "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ...."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 3:07 AM GMT
    ^+1. Correct, which is why this bill is a complete - and revealingly stupid - waste of time and money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 7:46 AM GMT
    MGINSD said^+1. Correct, which is why this bill is a complete - and revealingly stupid - waste of time and money.


    Yep, a cynical ploy to get donors to contribute.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Apr 24, 2015 11:52 AM GMT
    MGINSD said^+1. Correct, which is why this bill is a complete - and revealingly stupid - waste of time and money.


    That has never stopped them from doing something they consider politically expedient. Like defending DOMA when it was already doomed, or now the open defiance of federal court orders in Alabama.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 24, 2015 2:16 PM GMT
    Court stripping is fun, and embodies the conservative principles of...which principle again...script check!

    I'd imagine that the Senate doesn't have a supermajority to overcome a filibuster, and I'd imagine that Obama would refuse to sign this and instead wipe his dog's ass with it.

    So, really, what are we doing here? This is out there, even for GOP standards of crazy.
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Apr 25, 2015 4:48 PM GMT
    This is such an asinine move, even for the social conservative wing of the GOP.