Rep. Jim Bridenstine Falsely Claims Supreme Court Doesn’t Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional

Freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, didn’t correct Bridenstine’s wrong view of the Court’s role.

(Source: ThinkProgress.org and DailyCaller.com)

About The Author

You might be interested in

Comment (9)

  1. So let’s see if we understand the role of the Judicial Branch of the United States federal government as described by our patriotic, enlightened conservative legislators:
    If a federal court overturns a decision or nullifies a piece of legislation generated by progressives, then they are righteous warriors defending the U.S. Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, blah, blah, blah.

    If these same judges opt to rule against a conservative position, then they are clearly “activist judges” who need to be removed from the court ASAP by any means necessary.

    And so to demonstrate their commitment to our sacred U.S. Constitution, many conservative pundits and politicians strive to eliminate those Amendments that conflict with their ideology, simply ignore other sections that they find inconvenient to honor, and to pick and choose which federal court rulings they deem worthy to uphold.

    This is the same nonsensical reasoning that tea party pundits use regarding the outcome of federal and state elections:
    The election outcome is only valid when their candidate is voted into office, and court decisions are only valid when their argument is upheld.

  2. You can’t seriously be reaching for this straw, can you? It is totally obvious what he was talking about. Okay, for those of you who are clueless, let me s-p-e-l-l it out for you. Not everything people say, is actually true. Just because people on the Supreme Court claim that something is Constitutional, does not mean that their decision regarding that matter was an accurate one. Bridenstine’s point was that the ObamaCare penalty for not carrying health insurance was ruled to be, “a tax”. Now, if you can agree with the Supreme Court on that, then by all means, I would love to read your making of your case, as it should be rather entertaining; until then, I’m sticking with Rep. Bridenstine and the rest of the people that are for common sense.

  3. Common Sense: Rep. Jim Bridenstine should thank you for explaining what his “point” was, but we have no way of knowing for sure if you’re correct as Rep. Jim Bridenstine has not confirmed that you are speaking for him or what his “point” is. Keep “sticking” with Rep. Jim Bridenstine who apparently cannot express himself correctly according to your post.

  4. Common Sense, while you are free to rewrite and Rep. Jim Bridenstine’s bizarre statements, please don’t rewrite our statements. Thank you.

  5. So, what you are revealing with your idiotic statements, is that you are idiotic. There; do you like that better?

    Hint, hint: I only stated what the Congressman stated. I didn’t re-write anything, doofus. If you were interested in LISTENING to what he actually had to say (0:45 to 1:35), instead of trying to slander and libel someone who you disagree with, politically, you would KNOW that. But, you are so BIASED and SET IN YOUR WAYS that you do not realize that you are CLOSED-MINDED and BLIND to the TRUTH.

  6. Commen Sense: We accurately quoted Re. Jim Bridenstine in our story.

    You then claimed Rep. Bridenstine actually meant something else and fabricated the following statement for Rep. Bridenstine:: “Bridenstine’s point was that the ObamaCare penalty for not carrying health insurance was ruled to be a ‘tax.'”

    Rep. Bridenstine’s actual statement was ““Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional.”

    However, that is inaccurate according to the judicial laws of the U.S.

  7. Commen Sense: We accurately quoted Rep. Jim Bridenstine in our story.

    You then claimed Rep. Bridenstine actually meant something else and fabricated the following statement for Rep. Bridenstine: “Bridenstine’s point was that the ObamaCare penalty for not carrying health insurance was ruled to be a ‘tax.”

    However, Rep. Bridenstine’s actual statement was ““Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional.”

    That is inaccurate according to the judicial laws of the U.S. It’s sad day when an U.S. Congressman is woefully unaware of the law. We consider this thread closed.

  8. At first, I gave you too much credit by calling you idiotic. Now, I realize that you’re actually just dishonest. Sorry for making that mistake.

    Speaking of courts, ever hear of testimony being given under oath to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth? Well, YOU are not telling THE WHOLE truth; and you know it. Therefore, you are worse than idiotic (which can often be blamed on honest ignorance); you are worse, because you are knowingly dishonest. Anyone who carefully reads our correspondence above, will know that is obvious. I gave you the EXACT location of the TRUTH that you IGNORE, but you respond with a false CLAIM about a direct quote – false, because you are leaving out the rest of his statements, which utterly clarify his point that you so stupidly are attempting to twist around. So, really, you are acting like a total jerk. I may have my differences with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, but I would NEVER stoop so low as to attempt to make political hay out of their completely obvious statements. You just wanted a flashy headline to sell.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *