Can't the American people just denounce the Supreme Court?
-
I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.
For what little I've gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn't there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?
Why can't a judge say "I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings"?
Within the confines of the Constitution, no.
If we realize en masse that this system is broken and there is no internal fix for it, then yes.
-
Well, that would be a constitutional crisis. And its what we're heading for.
The thing is, once a case goes to the SC, its pretty much written in stone until they themselves overturn it. The Executive branch is beholden to its rulings so what they say is how the law gets handled. So if a, say, district judge makes one ruling, and the SC overtures it, the SC has the Executive branch make sure its enforced.
There aren't really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.
SCOTUS can be impeached. Unclear who would run the trial if you're impeaching Roberts though.
Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all need to be though.
-
I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.
For what little I've gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn't there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?
Why can't a judge say "I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Hahahaha
Geez, man, read a book. Or even a Wikipedia page
You're advocating rule by mob over rule of law... You know, like the French Revolution
-
There's a process within the law, and there's a process where we replace the current law with something else. Within the law, we can vote for representatives who will impeach the current corrupt justices and approve new ones who are hopefully not corrupt. Let's call that option A.
Option B is the total overthrow of the government, which is ridiculous to even consider, but it's the alternative you're hinting at. Denouncing the SCOTUS doesn't change the ruling government in any way. Society is built on the idea that we all more or less agree to be ruled in exchange for fair rules and national defense. In a democracy, you have the appearance of agency, but you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled. The difference between democracy and fascism is that fascism explicitly defines violence as the means of control, while democracy merely implies that violence will be used to keep order. Once a democratically elected ruler decides to become fascist, there is no remedy but violence.
To wit, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
That said, I do not think we're quite there yet. I have no doubt Trump will try to go all in to remain in power, but I don't think he actually has enough followers to pull it off.
But that still leaves the corrupt justices on the bench. We need to focus on elections for representatives willing to impeach corrupt justices. If you think that process is too slow, consider that a violent revolution would probably take decades of bloodshed, and there's no guarantee we don't get some other despot as a result. Violence is not the answer to this question.
you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled.
y'know, the people who rule me have always said that, but recently i'm not so sure...
-
I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.
For what little I've gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn't there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?
Why can't a judge say "I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]The fact that Obama didn’t fill the position that Scalia opened when he died is probably one of the biggest missed opportunities in America’s recent history. Had his position been filled with a left-leaning Justice, especially a young one with many decades of life left, much of America’s Fascist changes could have been opposed.
As it is, the SC has become a rubber stamp for whatever the current Fascist/Authoritarianist regime wants.
-
Because the Supreme Court and it's powers are defined in the Constitution itself, that's not possible. They are the highest court in the country.
the constitution is a piece of paper that endorses slavery. it's not sacred. we're not beholden to it.
-
I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.
For what little I've gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn't there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?
Why can't a judge say "I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]By definition, anything the SCOTUS rules is constitional. Typically, in the US, until a law defines or forbids something, it's legal.
In cases like Roe v. Wade, there not a direct or clear law that says "abortion is legal." It was a right to privacy that Roe leaned on, that a woman's decision to get an abortion or not was covered as a privacy issue. Which is not an altogether permanent ruling over a longer time frame and a change in justices and a new case can change how the law is interpreted. The more permanent version would be a constitutional amendment that would be harder to undo, doesnt rely on the SCOTUS to interpret nuance, and is the result of a push by the American people to change a law.
Ultimately, the way to nullify a SCOTUS ruling is to make a more clear law that says "no, actually, we want this."
-
Because the Supreme Court and it's powers are defined in the Constitution itself, that's not possible. They are the highest court in the country.
Trump and the Supreme Court have violated the constitution
-
Well, that would be a constitutional crisis. And its what we're heading for.
The thing is, once a case goes to the SC, its pretty much written in stone until they themselves overturn it. The Executive branch is beholden to its rulings so what they say is how the law gets handled. So if a, say, district judge makes one ruling, and the SC overtures it, the SC has the Executive branch make sure its enforced.
There aren't really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.
Well, that would be a constitutional crisis.
We've been using the phrase "constitutional crisis" to explain a relationship between the three branches that boils down to "The President can do what he wants" since at least Reagan.
This isn't a crisis. This is how the country has been governed for decades (if not centuries).
There aren’t really any ways to remove SC justices in the law.
The legal resolution to a broken court is to pack it with better judges and to prosecute corrupt officials as you find them.
Liberals refuse to do this. Ffs, they can't even be bothered to bottle up a SC nomination a month before election day.
We have an outright fascist party and a controlled opposition. Until that changes, every well-meaning progressive is just taking another swing at Lucy's football when they primary in another batch of Do Nothing Dems.
-
There aren't really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.
Well, they can hypothetically be impeached, but that's unlikely to happen with the current Congress.
Impeachment doesn't seem to function in the modern political landscape
-
I constantly see that the current US Supreme Court makes inconstitucional rulings like for example, allowing racial profiling.
For what little I've gathered due to separation of powers. The supreme court is just a designated authority. Why hasn't there been any movement that just aims to de-legitimize the current supreme Court?
Why can't a judge say "I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *
-
There aren't really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.
Well, they can hypothetically be impeached, but that's unlikely to happen with the current Congress.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Impeachment is unlikely with any congress. It's just not a sufficient method of accountability.
-
There aren't really any ways to remove SC justices in the law. Thats exactly why we on the left have been raising concern about these appointees for so long.
Well, they can hypothetically be impeached, but that's unlikely to happen with the current Congress.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They can be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for criminal misconduct as well. When you have a judge like Thomas openly accepting bribes to influence his vote from the bench, he's in direct violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Our liberal DOJ didn't want to touch this under Biden or Obama or Clinton, because it would have angered the press.
But this was a political decision not a legal one.
-
you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled.
y'know, the people who rule me have always said that, but recently i'm not so sure...
-
Because the Supreme Court and it's powers are defined in the Constitution itself, that's not possible. They are the highest court in the country.
The modern Supreme Court has more power than was given to it by the Constitution. For example, their deciding the constitutionality of a law is not mentioned in the Constitution.
It was a big deal when the Supreme Court first did it. And they've been slowly giving themselves extra power making it more and more difficult to stop them.
-
you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled.
y'know, the people who rule me have always said that, but recently i'm not so sure...
You can withdraw your consent to be ruled and state officials can press their claims.
Then the question is "Who wins?"
I would ask the good people of Palestine how that goes.
-
You can withdraw your consent to be ruled and state officials can press their claims.
Then the question is "Who wins?"
I would ask the good people of Palestine how that goes.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's the kind of thing that's worth doing regardless of the probability of success. I also don't think much of the comparison between palestine and america.
-
you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled.
y'know, the people who rule me have always said that, but recently i'm not so sure...
Well that's the trick, isn't it? The people who rule presume consent, but what they are really expecting is compliance. Your compliance is presumed consent. You can revoke your compliance any time you like, but the rulers will respond to noncompliance with force.
-
The fact that Obama didn’t fill the position that Scalia opened when he died is probably one of the biggest missed opportunities in America’s recent history. Had his position been filled with a left-leaning Justice, especially a young one with many decades of life left, much of America’s Fascist changes could have been opposed.
As it is, the SC has become a rubber stamp for whatever the current Fascist/Authoritarianist regime wants.
The fact that Obama didn’t fill the position that Scalia opened when he died is probably one of the biggest missed opportunities in America’s recent history
Blaming that on Obama is a real bullshit take on reality. Like it was one of the biggest stories in 2016 and hugely factored in the campaign rhetoric for every federal office. I have a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuinely unaware why the seat wasn't filled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination
-
the constitution is a piece of paper that endorses slavery. it's not sacred. we're not beholden to it.
I mean, if you get a page from Hobbes, you'll note that you're not beholden to The Constitution, but you are beholden to the People With The Big Army.
Similarly, Locke notes that governance is implicitly voluntary. It works because we choose to abide by it. But individual dissents acting erratically won't undermine the system. You need an organized countervailing force.
You need a real organized opposition government that does have the consent of the governed. It can't just be Sovereign Citizens spouting legal gibberish.
