Supreme Court Quotes
In 1832 the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia could not remove Creek and Cherokee Indians from lands that had been guaranteed to them by a federal treaty. The president disagreed with the court, then headed by John Marshall:. Marshall could not do so without the executive. The Indians were illegally removed to Western lands.
In a 1949 dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago Jackson claimed the majority view would “convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Then Senator Biden, commenting on the 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court by President Bush.
This quotation is a great example of the difficulty of deciding some of the major Constitutional issues. Most reasonable people believe that Rehnquist certainly has a point. On the other hand, critics observe that this quotation essentially says that it is OK to convict an innocent person if it cost too much or be too much trouble to do so. Reasonable people would also agree that this objection has much merit also. So the judicial system is stuck with deciding when the cost or trouble is too much. There will never, can never, be a clear cut answer.
Chase a Supreme Court justice at the time was a very partisan Federalist. The Senate was controlled by the Democratic Republicans. Randolph, then a member of the House of Representatives, orchestrated the impeachment of Chase because of his extreme partisanship. The Senate in trying the case had to decide for the first time what “high crimes and misdemeanors” the actually means in terms of impeachment. A number of the Democratic Republicans joined the Federalists in taking the view that however undesirable the Supreme Court justice’s partisanship would be, that did not reach the threshold of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” Chase was acquitted. In this sense this impeachment trial was similar to that of President William Clinton almost 200 years later. The behavior was undesirable but did not amount to a high crime and misdemeanor, Clinton was also acquitted.
The reference to sex with Niddot refers to having sex with a menstruating woman which the ultra-Orthodox see as a serious sin. Few modern people the world over obey this biblical injunction. The Israeli Supreme court has constantly invalidated laws and government regulations that require other Jews and non-Jews in Israel to obey all the Sabbath laws of the Bible. That in the view of Ovadia is “desecrating” the Sabbath.
Two openings appeared on the Supreme Court for Nixon to fill. He heard from many people on recommendations, but he wanted to fill the posts with “strict constructionists.” Rehnquist had written giving him a political operational definition of a strict constructionist. This memo was never released to the public by the White House on the grounds that it was protected by Executive Privilege. However, the definition given had virtually nothing to do with the concept of strict construction but is a definition of a ideological conservative constructing his own meaning to the Constitution. The source for the text came from John Dean, the Counsel to the President, who found this memo in his White House file and revealed it at a question and answer session at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, October 10, 2001.
Technically the correct title is Chief Justice of the United States. He was one of the longest-serving Chief Justices and in his tenure the court did change from a liberal court to a conservative one.
President George W. Bush had ignored a federal law and tapped the phones of Americans without probable cause and a warrant issued by a court. The President’s defenders argued that the President, as Commander in Chief, has the Constitutional responsibility to lead the military and protect the nation. Intelligence gathering is part of military activity. Therefore the intelligence gathering is a Constitutional duty and the Congress, under the separation of powers doctrine, may not interfere with the President’s Constitutional Duty to conduct intelligence. Under this doctrine, the President need not obey laws that he believes impinge on his management of the war effort and the defense of the nation. Most legal scholars believe that this argument is nonsense, but the George W. Bush administration has stated the doctrine and it was the subject of much litigation.
