Can't the American people just denounce the Supreme Court?
-
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.
-
Nice word salad there with no real meaning. You're delusional if you don't think the constitution is already in crisis.
Well, I guess when all you want is a good sound bite, you can call it whatever you want.
Bad thing happen! Panic! Panic! Don't think, just react!
-
Well, I guess when all you want is a good sound bite, you can call it whatever you want.
Bad thing happen! Panic! Panic! Don't think, just react!
You're underplaying neighboring states sending their militaries to blue cities. They're doing it in the name of reducing crime, but the military isn't allowed to take police actions for US citizens.
-
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.
No, the SCOTUS interprets the laws for implementation. All SCOTUS can overturn is previous interpretations.
-
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"?
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”?
The constitution clearly says they can't, so if their notion of the law is claiming to be based in the constitution such a declaration would be obviously bullshit. If their notion of the law is not based on the constitution, that's an attempt to dissolve our government.
-
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"?
Yeah, it's just a farce now. There is no merit to their decisions. They are not passing laws, but political judgements.
-
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.
Yeah, who could see a constitutional crisis in an authoritarian wannabe despot is using military as police with no real pushback from the courts?
-
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"?
Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? - John Adams
The US government is built around trying to put off dealing with the impossibility of a "democracy" swarming with slaves and incredibly rich aristocrats, so it needs unelected people whose job is to say no when people try to vote against the aristocrats. There might be liberals who don't like the racial profiling, but that's the price they pay to have a secretive council of lords who make it illegal for you to vote to make landlords illegal.
-
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]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?
Wait, what? Can you explain a bit more? Like what laws are you looking at, and are they less than 200 years old?
At least in practice, the Supreme Court is as strong as any other American institution. Which, to be fair, is saying less and less, but the faction with all the initiative right now is not the one against racial profiling.
-
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.
We also have 2 justices that lied under oath. They said they wouldn’t touch precedent and were asked specifically about roe v wade and said they wouldn’t vote against it but they did. The supreme court is not valid in my opinion but what are we supposed to do about it?
-
No, the SCOTUS interprets the laws for implementation. All SCOTUS can overturn is previous interpretations.
This SCOTUS has openly lied about what the constitution requires.
-
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.
I hate to bring it up, but the second amendment is a law.
And that’s the problem with the corruption we’re seeing. The poor of both left and right are seeing decisions favor the rich and powerful at the expense of what they believed were their rights. We need to correct the list of the ship of state before people start to work against it openly.
-
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.
Impeachment trials are overseen by the Vice President except for when the President is being impeached.
