"appointments" clause, activism, autonomy, awareness, Challenge, Change, citizenship, civics, conflict, conservatism, constitution, critical judgment, Executive Branch, Freedom, General Interest, Ideology, Judicial Review, Judiciary Act of 1789, justice, law, Marbury v. Madison, news, political rhetoric, Presidency, republic, Secularity, Separation of Powers, Stuart v. Laird, Supreme Court, Uncategorized
I invite my fellow progressives / leftists to please feel free to vote me off the Island for saying the following, but ... in the interest of fairness, it should be said that acting AG Matthew Whitaker is right in a certain sense about Marbury v. Madison. To be sure, Matthew Whitaker is indeed a crackpot, and his own utterances, both written and spoken, amply justify that description. But let's be fair to broken clocks: even they are right twice a day. (The full text of Marbury can be found here; a very literate, enlightening, and even-handed summary, here.) The Constitution’s Article III is rather ambiguous, not about the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but about how “hard-coded” that original jurisdiction is in the Constitution. There are two questions at issue.