Can't the American people just denounce the Supreme Court?
-
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‽
-
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 don't think I can seriously disagree with any of this.
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.
okay, fine, but i- we- need a nexus of nucleation. i'm not seeing any evidence of such.
-
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.
Nice word salad there with no real meaning. You're delusional if you don't think the constitution is already in crisis.
-
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.
The framers made the dangerous presumption that everyone would act in good faith even if they disagreed. I'm actually kind of surprised there weren't more set-in-stone checks on power, given that they had just come out of a revolution where a not-insignificant proportion of the colonial population openly supported the occupying force.
-
Sorry, it's not an opinion, it's legal fact established by our founding documents.
It's irrelevant how much people "like" it.
Don't judges issue legal opinions? Don't legal opinions constitute what makes up legal facts (ie not facts about a case, or facts about a person, but facts about what constitutes law)? Did not opinions about what ought to be the law determine what was actually written in the constitution? Hasn't changing public opinion provoked changes in the constitution with time?
I agree, the popular appeal of a belief is not relevant to whether that belief is well-founded.
-
I don't think I can seriously disagree with any of this.
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.
okay, fine, but i- we- need a nexus of nucleation. i'm not seeing any evidence of such.
That's the hard work of organization building.
I can say that lots of cities and universities have their own chapters of DSA. I try to be active in my own location (although its difficult to juggle fatherhood, a job, and volunteer work). But its still a very small group without a ton of money at its disposal.
Compared to TPUSA, which is hooked up to the firehose of reactionary billionaire wallets, its an uphill climb.
-
That's the hard work of organization building.
I can say that lots of cities and universities have their own chapters of DSA. I try to be active in my own location (although its difficult to juggle fatherhood, a job, and volunteer work). But its still a very small group without a ton of money at its disposal.
Compared to TPUSA, which is hooked up to the firehose of reactionary billionaire wallets, its an uphill climb.
my experience with the local com.par. was that they were mostly interested in re-hashing the history of russia and selling books and t-shirts... i'll check out dsa i suppose.
-
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 could but that would mean effort and sacrifice... so they won't until it affects them directly and personally because "fuck you, got mine... why would I bother to help anyone other than myself?!"
-
my experience with the local com.par. was that they were mostly interested in re-hashing the history of russia and selling books and t-shirts... i'll check out dsa i suppose.
Political dorks love reading history. You're not going to find an organization that's devoid of them.
I'll say that my Houston DSA is a lot more active in union organizing, candidate canvasing, and Palestine protest activism than some others. But if you're allergic to the guy who wants to talk your ear off about the 1930s political scene... idk, man. It's like moths to the flame. Left, right, and center - I've been through them all and everyone has their favorite stack of history books.
-
Political dorks love reading history. You're not going to find an organization that's devoid of them.
I'll say that my Houston DSA is a lot more active in union organizing, candidate canvasing, and Palestine protest activism than some others. But if you're allergic to the guy who wants to talk your ear off about the 1930s political scene... idk, man. It's like moths to the flame. Left, right, and center - I've been through them all and everyone has their favorite stack of history books.
The damned thing is I really like history, I thought I hated it for the longest time but it turns out I was just badly taught. I just feel like... i'm not trying to join a book club.
