Now, if a dumb ol’ retired Lieutenant Colonel who still jumps out of airplanes can dissect this and make it plain and simple to understand…why can’t the Attorney General of the United States do so?
It is good to revisit the general details of Madison v. Marbury.
Jefferson and the Courts
On his last day in office, John Adams attempted to further the Federalist legacy by appointing numerous federal judges to office. These became known as the "midnight appointments" and naturally irritated the incoming Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Federalist views. These judges held lifetime tenures, making it impossible for the new president to shape the judiciary. One of the appointees, William Marbury, was appointed a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia; the appointment was ratified by the Senate.
However, his official commission had not been delivered by the time Jefferson took office. The new secretary of state, James Madison, seemingly flouted the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by refusing to deliver the documents. Marbury then sued for a writ of mandamus — a court order to compel a federal official to carry out a prescribed action. The case did not reach the Supreme Court until 1803. The chief justice was John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and former Adams secretary of state, who had received his appointment to the high court just two months before Jefferson took office. Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison accomplished the following:
Gave the Chief Justice opportunity to chide his political opponents by holding that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury
Avoided a confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch, given that no action was ordered by the Supreme Court
Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.
Marbury never became a justice of the peace in Washington, but John Marshall had fashioned a Supreme Court with power equal to the other branches of government. In the aftermath of the Marshall decision, the Democratic-Republicans tried other means to remake the judiciary. They enjoyed initial success by impeaching and removing from office one John Pickering, a federal judge in New Hampshire; Pickering was plagued by mental problems and probably needed to be removed from his position. Next, however, the Jefferson forces moved against a Supreme Court associate justice, Samuel Chase, who was charged with impartial behavior and impeached by the House. The Senate, much to its credit and Jefferson's chagrin, refused to remove him from office.
In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!
"The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."
The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." (1820)
"…the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one….when all government … in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.
"…judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic…"
We are looking at the expected mayhem we expected on 1/20/25, its just a tad bit late. You can tell Soros is behind this endeavor by all the telltale usual suspects crooked judges and DAs along with the incessant ravings of the Lefty looney media.
It is good to revisit the general details of Madison v. Marbury.
Jefferson and the Courts
On his last day in office, John Adams attempted to further the Federalist legacy by appointing numerous federal judges to office. These became known as the "midnight appointments" and naturally irritated the incoming Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Federalist views. These judges held lifetime tenures, making it impossible for the new president to shape the judiciary. One of the appointees, William Marbury, was appointed a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia; the appointment was ratified by the Senate.
However, his official commission had not been delivered by the time Jefferson took office. The new secretary of state, James Madison, seemingly flouted the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by refusing to deliver the documents. Marbury then sued for a writ of mandamus — a court order to compel a federal official to carry out a prescribed action. The case did not reach the Supreme Court until 1803. The chief justice was John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and former Adams secretary of state, who had received his appointment to the high court just two months before Jefferson took office. Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison accomplished the following:
Gave the Chief Justice opportunity to chide his political opponents by holding that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury
Avoided a confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch, given that no action was ordered by the Supreme Court
Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.
Marbury never became a justice of the peace in Washington, but John Marshall had fashioned a Supreme Court with power equal to the other branches of government. In the aftermath of the Marshall decision, the Democratic-Republicans tried other means to remake the judiciary. They enjoyed initial success by impeaching and removing from office one John Pickering, a federal judge in New Hampshire; Pickering was plagued by mental problems and probably needed to be removed from his position. Next, however, the Jefferson forces moved against a Supreme Court associate justice, Samuel Chase, who was charged with impartial behavior and impeached by the House. The Senate, much to its credit and Jefferson's chagrin, refused to remove him from office.
JEFFERSON'S WARNINGS
In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!
"The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."
The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." (1820)
"…the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one….when all government … in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.
"…judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic…"
We are looking at the expected mayhem we expected on 1/20/25, its just a tad bit late. You can tell Soros is behind this endeavor by all the telltale usual suspects crooked judges and DAs along with the incessant ravings of the Lefty looney media.
You ain’t dumb. There are several ways to stop this and they are all legal. My favorite is cut their salaries…
LTC West
Direct hit.
Fire for effect.