Can't the American people just denounce the Supreme Court?
-
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.
-
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.
One way to think of punishments for crimes is as a deterrent. Another is to think of them as prices to pay for the right to break the law. You'll be tempted to interpret this as non-sequitur.
-
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
We do need a French solution to the billionaire problem.
-
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
I did not take rekabis's comment to be blaming obama but just that it did not happen. I mean I saw it like you did for a second but at the end of reading it I doubt somone who blamed obama would not highlight it more. I think just because he did not point out how obama was robbed of it made one jump to it being some kind of accusation.
-
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.
It’s the kind of thing that’s worth doing regardless of the probability of success
I strongly disagree. What you're proposing is either a toothless protest that gets a whole lot of people arrested, assaulted, and killed. Or a militant insurgency that gets even more people killed.
I also don’t think much of the comparison between palestine and america
-
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"?
Because for some reason we are still following the leadership of the establishment Democrats and that is anathema to them.
They were chosen to be weak, to play good cop to Republican bad cop, to not change back anything Republicans have done let alone improve things and threaten the privilege the rich have chiseled from us all.
The right wing has been doing that very thing with campaigns against activist judges for decades and it has been relatively successful along with stacking the courts with Federalist Society hacks chosen decide with the party over country, specifically to change the country old dynamic in the US where it does it did not matter what party nominated what judge, they would in their lifetime appointments represent the people and their interests not that party.
They probably have career ending blackmail that would force these guys to resign If released on top of choosing them to be hacks.
Without new leadership doing anything politically is a complete waste at best and often exposes you to the party machine in power for persecution while receiving no protection from dems.
Like voting officials in 2020. How are we still fighting under the edtablishment dems' banner?
-
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."
No, the Constitution is constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn the Constitution even if they engage in bad faith interpretations of 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.
i dont think hobbes was all that hot shit tbh. don't i remember his conclusion was effectively, '...and that's why monarchy is the best form of government?" maybe some of the steps in his reasoning were flawed. for instance, the People With The Big Army changes pretty much every 4 years, or did do until relatively recently, and that peacefully. so maybe the People With The Big Army could be us, if we could only figure out how to reach into the minds of all those soldiers, and an effective message to plant. while it might seem farfetch'd, isn't that exactly what social media is and does, just for the People-Who-Currently-Have-The-Big-Army?
i only read locke's essay concerning, but my opinion is that individuals comprise any hypothetical organized countervailing force. what people need to join such movements- what I would like to see, perhaps I should just speak for myself- is other people taking the brave public first steps of actual resistance, and not merely voterocking and sloganeering.
i think we agree very much here.
-
I love those skits with the peasants and swallows and this one.
