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"?
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.
-
the constitution is a piece of paper that endorses slavery. it's not sacred. we're not beholden to it.
The Supreme Court very much defines how our laws work and we are beholden to it.
-
The Supreme Court very much defines how our laws work and we are beholden to it.
I strongly disagree.
-
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 problem is the difficulty is intentional.
Part of the system of checks and balances is the Supreme Court is appointed for life so should be above the constant swing of politics or popular opinion.
In theory even today’s right wing court is ok (after four years) because they will remain regardless of what party is in power or clown is in the White House. It’ll be interesting to see what they do when politics swing back to sanity, however a non-fascist party resident won’t stretch the legal boundaries so maybe is irrelevant.
Given that positions on the court open up rarely and years apart, it generally stays relatively balanced. However this time around a combination of bad timing and political maneuvering made today’s court more partisan than ever. Violating the norm of requiring that they be competent means they no longer follow existing law or legal precepts
-
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.
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.
Uh .. I'm seeing a whole lot of letters being written urging the senate to perform their expected duty. Not seeing anything actually proposing actions Obama could have done other than withdraw Garland and nominate someone else. But why would he have when the Republicans told Obama point blank that they would not hold any hearings or votes for any candidate and they followed through for all judicial appointments (not just SCOTUS, there were like 70 federal judges nominated in 2016, and over 100 empty seats at the end of his presidency) unless Hillary won so she couldn't nominate someone more liberal) and Garland was already a name that the Republicans had name-dropped themselves as a reasonable nominee and they stonewalled him anyways. Maybe you could direct link to the parts of the article that say what specific legal avenues Obama had available to force the Republican committee to advance the nominee and McConnell to hold a floor vote. Something that 29 Democratic state attorneys general and the 194-strong Democractic House Representatives and 44 Democratic US Senators all overlooked.
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.
Don't disagree with you at all on any of this. But it's decidedly not Obama's fault that the SCOTUS seat went
-
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.
Based on their reply, I think they're definitely blaming Obama for it.
-
I strongly disagree.
Well, our entire legal system says otherwise.
-
Well, our entire legal system says otherwise.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I agree, your opinion is very popular.
edit: especially among professional lawyers...
-
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.
There aren't any real standards right now obviously. I just personally think the ethical bar for impeachment shouldn't be in hell though.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The Executive branch is beholden to its rulings
Though made significantly less potent by one such ruling that makes the president immune to punishment for any crime committed as an "official act".
Their rulings are effectively "No one but the president is able to do X, Y, Z" because the president can always just do something they know is illegal, wait months/years for the court to finally hear the case, get told to stop, and then basically just keep doing the same thing a different way until it gets challenged again, which becomes another months/years long process.
-
There aren't any real standards right now obviously. I just personally think the ethical bar for impeachment shouldn't be in hell though.
I don't look at it from an ethical bar, but functional. The political conditions where impeachment is likely is rare.
-
I don't look at it from an ethical bar, but functional. The political conditions where impeachment is likely is rare.
Big difference between what should be and what is across a broad spectrum of things right now.
-
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.
A constitutional crisis is a specific kind of thing, which has more to do with machinations of power rather than the fallout of those machinations.
As yet there hasn't been a strong constitutionally backed opposition to these actions, though I imagine they're in the works, it's probably not a "constitutional" crisis, just a more generic one.
-
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.
don’t i remember his conclusion was effectively, '…and that’s why monarchy is the best form of government?"
That's reductive and misses much of the thesis of The Elements of Law or Leviathan. Hobbes definitely extols the virtue of a strong central government, but he mentions it in contrast to the feuding princedoms common to 17th century Europe. He (not unreasonably) critiques the democratic governments of the ancient world by noting their penchant for demagoguery and civil wars along the same lines.
But the argument is around which countries can most efficiently formulate and implement national policy. This isn't a moral critique so much as a Machiavellian practical analysis.
for instance, the People With The Big Army changes pretty much every 4 years
The President changes every 4-8 years. The bureaucracy in the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the State Department are more static. US foreign policy hasn't radically changed since Truman. Presidents routinely run up against professional career bureaucrats who slow roll, undermine, and neglect policies they oppose. The military itself has its own political inertia in that regard, and it isn't something you can easily sway unless you're ready to jettison large chunks of your experienced labor force.
if we could only figure out how to reach into the minds of all those soldiers, and an effective message to plant
Military bases are absolutely awash in AM Talk Radio, right-wing TV, and QAnon internet. It isn't unusual to see a Douglas MacArthur or a Michael Flynn retire from the service to get involved in politics and expose how absolutely unhinged the upper ranks of the US military can get. Also, we're apparently putting CTOs from tech companies into the officers' corps now.
I think this is a solved problem from the right. You basically buy your way in with your trillions of dollars in media cartels and contractor kickbacks.
my opinion is that individuals comprise any hypothetical organized countervailing force
Individuals have to act in concert. They need to collaborate, coordinate their actions, and provide support to one another. It isn't enough for a million people to wake up one morning and say "We're not going to take it anymore" without any understanding of who their peers are or what they're doing.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
The term has become an idiom describing a group of persons, each agreeing to perform an impossibly difficult task under the misapprehension that someone else will be chosen to run the risks and endure the hardship of actual accomplishment.
-
I agree, your opinion is very popular.
edit: especially among professional lawyers...
Sorry, it's not an opinion, it's legal fact established by our founding documents.
It's irrelevant how much people "like" it.
-
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.
Like make up law, take bribes and shit on the constitution in favor of a goddamn fascist think tank‽
