Can't the American people just denounce the Supreme Court?
-
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.
-
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
Everything in the link you provided says that Obama could have done a shitton more to ensure that the Senate Judiciary Committee actually did their jobs.
Instead, they played political bullshit, Obama blinked, and as a result, America is now two good shakes away from a Fascist dictatorship. The midterm elections - or America’s own “Night of the Long Knives”, which seems all the more likely due to the rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s assassination - Will cinch this future in the bag.
-
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.
we're heading for.
It's crazy to me that people are still saying we're heading for it... Our Capitol was invaded by militaries from other states and they're now invading Chicago. The crisis is over, the civil war has already begun.
-
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
I'll be honest man. I just don't see the people up there actually doing their job and conceding everything to trump. The separation of powers has long been corrupted and it's no longer actually doing its job.
I personally can't wait to see what comes out of America's disillusionment.
-
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
yeah, well, the problem is I think that not forming some sort of effective resistance constitutes complicity. i'd rather be damned for what I do than what I didn't do, personally.
-
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]Not a fair comparison. Palestinians are holed up into ghettos, everything in or out controlled and overwhelming indiscriminate force being applied at any provokation real or constructed by the state or their paramilitary settlers.
Consent does not play into palestine's situation anymore than it did with rezidents of the warsaw ghetto.
-
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.
You are absolutely allowed to criticize the highest court in the land what are you are you even trying to say here?
-
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
I mean, the rule of law has clearly failed.
-
We do need a French solution to the billionaire problem.
Kill unrelated people and let them buy national property for pennies on the dollar?
-
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"?
They're part of the totally optional "checks and balances" we've depended on for 250 years or so. The Founders never thought the solution would become part of the problem, so there's a limited number of options available. Impeachment is one, but the other part of the checks and balances is Congress, which has also become part of the problem.
Depending on voluntary compliance was a noble idea in the 1700s, but it should have been codified in the federal regulations.
-
Not a fair comparison. Palestinians are holed up into ghettos, everything in or out controlled and overwhelming indiscriminate force being applied at any provokation real or constructed by the state or their paramilitary settlers.
Consent does not play into palestine's situation anymore than it did with rezidents of the warsaw ghetto.
Palestinians are holed up into ghettos, everything in or out controlled and overwhelming indiscriminate force being applied at any provokation real or constructed by the state or their paramilitary settlers.
They're farther down the rabbit hole than we are. But we're all moving in the same direction.
-
yeah, well, the problem is I think that not forming some sort of effective resistance constitutes complicity. i'd rather be damned for what I do than what I didn't do, personally.
I think that not forming some sort of effective resistance constitutes complicity
To some degree, sure. But then you might as well say the same of Ukrainians living in occupied Russian territory. "Oh, you should have just fought harder" is more a cavalier one-liner than a political perspective.
I think we're witnessing a certain amount of survivorship bias. The folks who are "complicit" are often just the people remaining after rebellious groups were quashed or driven away.
-
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.
Only one Supreme Court justice has been impeached, and even then they weren't removed from office. You would need to have a judge do horrific things to get removed from office.
-
I think that not forming some sort of effective resistance constitutes complicity
To some degree, sure. But then you might as well say the same of Ukrainians living in occupied Russian territory. "Oh, you should have just fought harder" is more a cavalier one-liner than a political perspective.
I think we're witnessing a certain amount of survivorship bias. The folks who are "complicit" are often just the people remaining after rebellious groups were quashed or driven away.
“Oh, you should have just fought harder” is more a cavalier one-liner than a political perspective.
that's a hard point i'll give you that one, that's a stumper. it's a bit of a caricature, but it's also a reasonable reflection of my position. i really do think people need to stand up and fight but i'll be goddamned if I know what that even begins to look like here, let alone how to tell people to start laying down their lives for a cause.
